it was not "Incompetence". just like dunkirk was not "Incompetence". Ernst Hanfstängel, close friend of hitler and later secret agent for roosevelt, called them inofficial messages. my great grandfather was at the western front. he was scared as shit, just like this comrades. the officers were about to putsch hitler, but with no reason the french retreated. the french didnt even need 2 weeks, 2 hours of occupying the rheinland would have been enough. all oil, all metal, all weapon production gone. so why they retreat and wait 1 year for the blitzkrieg?
There was no real incompetence with WW2, everybody was trying to avoid another WW1. The French did not attack because they were not ready either. The Ardennes situation is sometimes looked at as incompetence but then again nobody had ever had a chance to use tanks in a heavily wooded area before, even the Germans were not sure if it would work. It however did work and the French just happened not to have any defenses in the Sedan area, and between that and 2 bold German generals (Rommel and Guderian), the French got knocked out in a month.
I'm honestly not sure what's worse, having an ally that doesn't even try to help, or an ally that fails so miserable in it's attempt that it's completely forgotten by major populace
XD France was very useless... Cant forget the betrayal of 1938 from them and UK forcing my country to give up sudeten. Didnt wanted to give up their comfort.. We all know how it ended. We see same thing happening now in Ukraine. People want to stop helping just so they can buy things little cheaper. But if Putin stormed europe along with China then all these people would blame everyone but themselves...
both poland and czechoslovakia trusted their security on france and kept hostile relations one to the other. without the fake alliance they could think of the support of the neighbor.
Why was Poland so unprepared for war, they had existed for 20 years, they should not have needed an ally. The French were not mobilized because they remembered WW1 and did not want a repeat. The French and British were also sort of willing to let Germany have Poland, because it was still believed that Germany was not ready for war. The Poles, the Italians, Czech was seemingly not ready for war even though they had no restrictions on them, unlike Germany.
My Granny told me that there were Polish families glued to radios, crying with joy when England and France declared war. Believe me, when nothing came out of it this was (and is to this day, we know our history in Poland) one of our biggest historical disappointments. This kind of treatment kept happening even when the war ended. Do you know what was the only Allied nation not invited to the victory parade in London? Yup, you guessed it. Us.
@todayifoundout Good question! If you consider Russians were there allready, might have been the right time, if you think logicaly. @thecriticalpole Did they also cry for Joy, when german heritages were slaughtered by Polishs in the Border region before and after the war? Or execution of poles by stalins order were covered up by your good friends, that bravely came to help, because they love poland so much? Here is a little Story: Lewis and Pierre hanging out. They dont like anyone else, frankly they dont really like each other. But they are afraid that, all the other guys Start talking and realize what bullshit they Do the whole time (like with lil Jamaal, Motombo, Kumar and Wang for Exemple). So they go to Piotr and Tell him Friedrich insulted his mom, because they think He is a bit slow and promise him , to help Piotr if there is trouble. Then they go to Igor and Tell him, Piotr stole his money and gave it to Friedrich, who is an Asshole anyway and He should go to Friedrich, take his money back and then take Piotr to Gulag. If there are Problems , they help. Then they watched the nice Action from a far and when Friedrich got Mad, they called Lewis big brother Matthew
Yeah and it didn't end whit the nazi occupation then the Russians came I saw my way back and wow we all know Stalin was evil but damm people really were so scared
I saw a documentary with former legionaries from Czechoslovakia who fought in France. They said they were hated by the French soldiers because they fought hard and the French wanted to give up to end the war.
yeah, the same thing with Polish soldiers in France, there were instances where French military police were arresting Polish soldiers for refusing to surrender, in one case the French Foreign Legion busted them out.
@@olseneudezet1 Not only french had little will to fight for example in british RAF polish pilot would see a lone german bomber, after he asked the commander for premission to attack the commander simply said 'do what you want' ofc the polish pilot engaged and was pretty shocked that the commander was so passive (and this is not the only story like this)
@@Eliktro The Resistance had never been as big as Polish underground forces, the Home Army alone was bigger. When France capitulated, they still had decent capacity to fight, could have lasted weeks if not months longer and de Gaulle believed it but he was the only one. Meanwhile Poland was totally crushed and as late as April 1940 there were still units of Polish army walking around the country in full uniforms, attacking German police and smaller army units. France lost because it never even wanted to try.
Yeah the French got soft after the Napoleon I remember the French revolution all the heads in the streets it was glorious then we got taken over by a midget who was a genius but still after him we lost it all again
as a French guy, I'm ashamed of this story. Gamelin was not the right commander in chief we should have had. A good one would have pushed further in the German territory. This should have been an opportunity to identify efficient officers, promote them and give allies the initiative agains Germany.
Shame should extend to your leaders of today. Is Macron possessing enough balls to deal with the current Russian situation? Or Ukrainian situation? What about the Germans? I think we like to look at history and don’t realise that we are living history right now.
@@Xplora213 Obviously, you cannot directly compare both situations and you are not well informed. We are not in war with Russia. We don't have a mutual defense agreement with Ukraine. A direct intervention would certainly escalate to a global nuclear war. We don't have enough stocks of ammonitions to help Ukraine as high as we would like. We help but within acceptable limits for our own protection. In these conditions, we do our best to help the Ukrainian army : provide material and train troops. It's risk management. we could do more but for obvious reasons, we don't do an 'All In'. Also, believe me many western soldiers directly fight, on their own initiative, on the ground, but not only...
Hitler once said, that if the Allies invaded Germany in 1936 during the remilitarization of Rhineland, the nazies would've been wiped out. It's crazy to think that once we had a chance to prevent the deadliest conflict in human history in a few days
Oh well, in hindsight, everything looks simple. Yes, it's crazy to think about it, and not only the allies, but also a lot of germans would've been glad to not go down that rabbit hole - again, in hindsight. But this applies to so many points in history.
You all seem to forget that both the French and Brits and the low countries were still pretty shellshocked by WW1. Even if the Allies invaded Germany during Rhineland that would be seen as a war of aggresion. many people thought that rhineland was just 'Germans walking into their backyard'. And that war would still have a lot of casualities.
@@Tommy-sr7hl meh, propaganda could’ve made it look like an act of pacification. I mean, I’m Ukrainian, I know a thing or two about hatred toward enemy. If somebody say that we have to wipe a couple of Russian cities to prevent another war 10 years after the current one, I would not bat an eye about it, and I believe that Brits and French wouldn’t either
World War declarations came from the West - not from Germany or the Soviet Union. Germany and the Soviet Union started a European War (not a World War) in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: (Non-aggression/secret protocol). The Secret Protocol; a division of Eastern Europe.
I remember reading a while ago that the whole "appeasement" thing wasn't as dumb as it seemed. The UK was not ready for war: their rearmament did not anticipate war starting anywhere near as soon as it did. They had to buy time. Giving Hitler what he wanted was basically buying time so that the UK could rearm, defeat Germany and then free the lands taken by them. It's obviously not great for the people who's lands are given to the Germans but from the UK pov they didn't think they had any other options.
Lose a battle, win the war. It’s called tactics in chess. You sacrifice a peon to win the battle. It is the sad reality of choices we make sometimes for the “greater good”, or with a more relatable example, we go to work, sacrificing our time to maybe escape that job and do what we love of work towards that, or provide for those we love. Some might be lucky to actually do work they love hehe. If England would have thrown all its resources at the start they might have lost and German invasion could have been real. Then again there might have been a small chance they could have won at the start saving the world much pain. Who knows. Alternative realities.
This makes me think much differently about the fact Germany took France in 6 weeks. I was thinking they were equally matched other than Germanys tactics. Seems that was not true.
To be fair, in the 1930’s the impression (though not the reality) of the French army across Europe was that it was as good, if not superior, to that of Nazi Germany: when German soldiers entered the previously demilitarised Ruhr area in 1936, the German high command were actually fearful of the French Army, to the point that the German soldiers were under strict orders to retreat immediately from the Ruhr, if the French army advanced…this never happened, and this order (obviously Top Secret at the time) was only revealed years after WW2 ended… Think that is another possible “what if” as it would have been a total embarrassment and a climb down for Nazi Germany had that actually happened, before WW2 started…and actually would have given Great Britain and France the belief, that they could stand up to Nazi Germany, rather than appease them....
Germany had pound for pound the best soldiers of the war, but France had a better tank than anything Germany had. The problem was how the nation's differed in their use. Germany concentrated and used them to run ahead through lines and allow their mobilized infantry to secure holdings behind them while regular infantry secured the rear. France spread their tanks out as a support unit for their infantry. Contrary to popular opinion, the Maginot Line actually performed spectacularly because Germany never really tried to go through it. The Ardennes was the ignorant weakness for France. If France actually committed to biting the bullet and fighting the defensive battle on their own land again, its conceivable they could have held at least long enough for more reinforcements from colonial holdings. Just for the record Germany expected the invasion to take significantly longer than the 6 week collapse.
Another history channel, The Armchair Historian, did a similar video called "France's Failed 1939 Invasion of Germany". I recommend it as a follow up to anyone watching.
I hope he pronounces better. Witzleben is such a beautiful name, like a Porsche, quirky beautiful. The meaning is funny, but it can sound both slightly funny and also very seriously. We don't call the presenter S'mohn Ouisltier, why would he have difficulties saying Witzleben (vitslayben, not ouitsel ben). But i guess the voice makes up for it.
@@danielguy3581 oh you're right, I was writing that late at night, lay just came to my mind, and it's actually an americanized pronunciation..... btw. I still haven't looked up why the Z is no longer used in organize, americanize, fertilize. The auto-correction keeps suggesting S...? It shouldn't be that hard for me to figure out English, but as I get older i am noticeably slowing down at everything, darn it. How will I ever watch all the documentaries AND comment appropriately. Maybe I actually should stick to gardening or music. See? doing it again, writing on a whim, tsk tsk :P Oh and less than half, to answer your question. Anywhere between 10-40%, wild guess.
@@borisos9832 If that's Americanized, I would guess that would be by Yiddish influence. Check if your auto-correct is set to US or UK English (incidentally, while I generally conform to UK spellings, the 'ize' is one exception; I don't have a proper justification for the hybridization - possibly the z just graphically looks better in that position) If commenting 'appropriately' is important to you, you are more attentive and focused than the majority of youngsters, worry not.
@@borisos9832 I guess the major reason to use the english pronounciation is that he adresses an english speaking audience. They use their names like many other countries use their names for foreign names/cites/countries. To change the pronounciation might lead to confusion, because it's not clear for everyone what city he is talking about (Cologne vs Köln eg.).Of course "Witzleben" shouldn't be very well known no matter how he pronounces it, but to add special exceptions/rules will only make this case more complicated. And this neither useful nor reasonable. With personal names it's something different ofc, as long as he isn't known otherwise.
One third of the French army sat in the Maginot, one third gave up and wouldn’t fight, one third fought like lions and indeed without their bravery fighting rearguard at Dunkirk the British and some French soldiers wouldn’t have escaped to Britain.
The French defeat had nothing to do with bravery. Similar to 1870 and 1914, 1940 saw the French military suffering from old, incompetent generals and outdated tactics.
It still says the result have been different if a Gen Gamellin was not in charge of both the offensive and preparing the French army. Professional armies are meant to be trained and ready to fight any war with little notice.
Yes Gamelin is not exactly regarded as a hero in France. There are those who blame the entire occupation on him, though I wouldn't go that far. My opinion is more that after savong their ass in the revolutionary war America should have declared war early and defended France, that would have also helped the Royal Navy a lot as the Germans used France extensiveky to attack shipping and the UK. But it wasn't popular to join early on. Roosevelt was relatively alone in his wish to enter the war early.
@@221b-l3t The USA wouldn't be needed to join with troops. Just imagine a French Army with the lend lease equipment the soviets got. While Britannia ruled the waves (No ports for U-Boats at Biscaya) Germany would have been doomed like 1916.
@@gargoyle7863 The problem is that not just the leadership was incompetent but there really was no appetite for war among the soldiers. The memory of the Great War was still fresh and France had suffered really badly. A lot it being fought on it's soil. Maybe they would have prevailed maybe not. I don't think it's clear cut. Though if the tanks had been utilised effectively who knows. It might have been enough to pin the Germans down and then if America sent a bunch of equipment maybe. But it's a lot of what if's. Then again, no Gamellin and likely the entire leadership would have been different, making it a fundamentally different army and maybe an effective one.
@@gargoyle7863 But Germany wasn't doomed in 1916. The French Army almost mutinied and forced a peace in 1917. And Russia surrendered in 1917. It was the thought of the arrival of potentially millions of American troops that led to the Great War ending when and how it did.
If you want try the opposite with a lot of visualization and maps then try the "The Armchair Historian"'s video "France's Failed 1939 Invasion of Germany"
The Allies were fighting the new war with the old war tactics. They wanted to slowly strangle Germany in an attrition type stationary battle. The Germans were fighting the new war with new tactics and the Allied command structure was too slow to react to a rapidly changing battle field situation.
Chamberlain could have crushed Germany early on.. But Chamberlain pissed and SHT his pants. Yes good soldiers would have died but WW2 would not have happened.
The German tried to fight blitzkrieg and Allied mistakes allowed that. Stalin just fooled himself, might be at the time he already looked to the mirror too much. In fact Germany was not really prepared to sustain so called "blitzkrieg" any more than any other good army then and now. When you "blitz" you are incurring logistical debt, if you overdraw and not pay back in time you loose. American football coaches and players know it well: if you "blitz" large and often, make sure you GET the quarterback or at least make him throw out, otherwise there may or may not be a safety left in the backfield ... The bulk of German army "went to France on foot and their materiel on the horse-drawn wagons" (loosely from Adam Tooze: "Wages of Destruction"). You can see that on the actual WW2 documentary movies and photos. You don't have to dig high academia history though, Wikipedia describes the Battle of France accurately, the outcome was not by any means preordained. Did Allies attacked Germany in 1938 instead of the stupid negotiations they might have saved millions of lives.
@@thatbeme This is inaccurate. Britain was much less prepared for war at the time than Germany was. The mobilization hadn't even started. Chamberlain thought he was buying time. In hindsight we can say that it would've been better for him to go ahead and declare war, but it was a reasonable decision for him to make at the time.
The tide turned against Germany WAY before the Normandy landings took place (0:40). The tide began turning almost a year and a half earlier, in Stalingrad. Four months later, the Africa Korps surrendered to the Americans and British forces who had landed in North Africa in November 1942 (Operation Torch). In July 1943 Mussolini fell from power and Italy joined the Allies, and this was followed in September 1943 by the Allied invasion of Italy. The tide had long turned by the time the Normandy landings took place.
People are always surprised or offended when I tell them that. Acting like u.s saved the world solely, and its some how an insult to say the ussr was already on their way to Berlin.
@@TH-cam-C.I.A Indeed. The Wehrmacht sustained about 85% of all its casualties on the Eastern front and only 15% on all the others (Western Europe, Africa, the Balkans). This tells you who did the heavy lifting. This said, the Soviets would never have pulled it off had it not been for the massive shipment of war material or all description (400,000 trucks and jeeps, 12,000 armored vehicles, of which 7,000 tanks, 13,000 motorcycles, 2.6 million tons of fuel, artillery pieces, rolling stock, clothing, 1.7 million tons of food and rations, raw materials, medical supplies, some 18,000 airplanes, and so on) to the USSR by the USA from early 1942 on. All this had a much greater impact on the final outcome of the war than the Normandy landings, which were but a side show and a belated one at that.
@@Nickauboutte oh I do not take anything away from the u.s war effort. They did their part with lend lease, their industrial power and the pacific. They did it better then anyone. In terms of blood spilt, The soviet people sacrificed alot for the outcome the world got. They deserved to get to Berlin first. The eastern front would have been a shitty place to be at the time. Which you think would have been worse? The pacific of the eastern front?
@@TH-cam-C.I.A I agree. I was concentrating on the European theater, of course. I am not knowledgeable enough to engage in a comparison between the European and Pacific theaters, but my gut instinct tells me that the US probably had a tougher nut to crack in the latter, if only because they were to a large degree (larger than in Europe certainly) alone against the Japanese there.
@granasjj you should check out a bio called "with the old breed." The author is Eugene Sledge or "goodbye darkness" author is Willaim Machester. There's a good mini series on HBO or crave called the Pacific. It's based on Eugene sledges book, mostly. Those marines went through hell. Fighting for 10 mile wide islands for months, in mud, rain, digging fox holes to find dead marines that were buried alive in mud slides. The poisonous bugs. The japanese liked fighting at night and they seemingly would make sport out of crawling into the marine Fox holes just to have Hand to hand combat every night. The japanese imperial soldier is a different breed of soldier. Put it that way. Eastern front or the Pacific, I couldn't pick one. I'd need to flip a coin.
The Wermacht was like none other at the time. Their tanks ran on gasoline and could fill up at petrol stations and took France in 6 weeks. Frenchman on west coast thought the Germans were British soldiers at first because no way could an army make its way through France so quickly
Wermaht run on pervitin. That's why they were so fast not because of gasoline tanks. Remember that most of their logistics was still rolling with horse carts in that time.
@@Challis1989 then why was Blitzkrieg so effective? I understand the horse drawn part and know that is real, but nonetheless the German war machine at that time was like nothing the world had seen up until that point. Americans wanted absolutely nothing to do with the war until Pearl Harbor
@will cole it worked because of combined arms combat. No other nation had pioneered the use of planes infantry and tanks together. The British divisions could move fast but didn't have the strength to take on the German fast moving panzer forces with planes in close support. That's why when you look at tactical maps German infantry divisions were always miles behind the panzers. On the few occasions the panzer spears were fully combated they had to wait till alow moving infantry arrived to break the defence. It's why Hitler stopped the panzers it's a myth it was to save the British more to let the rest of the army catch up.
@@colewo92 Germany got a hell of a lot of equipment from Czechs, prior to their annexation Czechoslovakia was the forth largest military in Europe behind France, Britain and Germany. They had more than enough equipment and manpower to defend itself, and I’d imagine if events where slightly different Germany would be forced to invade the Czechs and fail like Russia has Ukrainian and this would have probably lead to the collapse of Nazi Germany as a whole. That’s just one possible outcome though but I’d like to see a alternate history about it.
In 1934 (year after Hitler came to power) Polish marshal Pilsudski proposed to France and Britain to declare and begin a war on Germany first, apparently he knew that Hitler is serious about his plans and wanted to take care of it before things get serious. The allies rejected.
Very good, AND Stalin planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed. The Red Army would have to put up to 120 infantry divisions, 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5.500 fighter aircraft bombers . Poland, whose territory the vast Russian army would have had to cross to confront Germany, was firmly AGAINST such an alliance. Poland wanted war with Germany too.
You left out the real reason for the French retreat, everyone insists on forgetting that France and England Governments saw Germany as a rival and not an enemy, and with sympathy too. The real enemy was the Soviet Union and they expected and would very much like a war between the Soviets and the Germans. Look at the dates the retreat order was given before they knew about the non-aggression pact (which is different from an alliance).
One should also keep in mind that when Germany went into Poland, Soviet Union went in, from the East, due to the Pact of non-aggression between Hitler and Stalin and between the two had already divided up Poland pre-war. This pact was broken when Operation Barbarosa started. It is important to see all sides in a conflict and not just one part as that may many times give certain bias.
Idk but i think germany saw france as an enemy as they saw the soviets. After all the soviets because of their idiology but the Frnech because of the huge humaliation they inflicted to germany making many germans wanting revenge.
@@justaplayer94 I partially agree with you, the French saw the Germans as the second biggest enemy behind the Soviets. But the Nazis saw the French government as an enemy, not the common French citizen who for them has a Germanic lineage, because the government used colonial peoples in the army and in other government posts and therefore for the Nazis they were pro miscegenation, in addition to revanchism also. So the Germans saw themselves as the liberators of France.
I don't think that is the main reason the French gave up so quickly, it is because WW1 was mostly fought on their territory just 25 years before they country had barely been rebuilt. Hatred of Communism was more of a factor for Britain.
Actually that is not what happened yes the Germans went through Belgium but they also went around the bottom through what the French thought was impenetrable ground
The French did leave the Maginot line. Infact these fortified positions were garrisoned by lowe rate reservists because the French army thought these were sectors that would see only little fighting. Their best and most mechanized fighting units invaded Belgium and got trapped there.
There are some basic inaccuracies in this, right at the start. There was no treaty signed with France and the UK in 1921 with a promise to defend Poland. The treaty between Poland, France and the UK wasn't signed until the end of March 1939. What's more, it was only directed at countering German aggression.
Statement by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on 31 March 1939. (Excerpt) _'In order to make perfectly clear the position of His Majesty's Government in the meantime before those consultations are concluded, I now have to inform the House that during that period, in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect._ _I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government.'_ This is known as the Temporary Assurance. Anglo-Polish communiqué issued on 6 April 1939. (Excerpt) _'It was agreed that the two countries were prepared to enter into an agreement of a permanent and reciprocal character to replace the present temporary and unilateral assurance given by His Majesty's Government to the Polish Government. ... Like the temporary assurance, the permanent agreement would not be directed against any other country but would be designed to assure Great Britain and Poland of mutual assistance in the event of any threat, direct or indirect, to the independence of either.'_ The above communiqué is about the Temporary Assurance after face-to-face talks between the leaders of Poland and UK, the evolution of the Assurance from a unilateral one to a reciprocal one, and a declaration of intent to make the Temporary Assurance a Permanent Agreement in the future. Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland, 25 August 1939. (Excerpt) _'ARTICLE 1._ _Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a_ *European Power* _in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power._ _ARTICLE 2._ _(1) The provisions of Article I will also apply in the event of any action by a_ *European Power* _which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces._ _(2) Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a_ *European Power* _in consequence of action by that Power which threatened the independence or neutrality of another_ *European State* _in such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that Contracting Party, the provisions of Article I will apply, without prejudice, however, to the rights of the other_ *European State* _concerned._ _ARTICLE 3._ _Should a_ *European Power* _attempt to undermine the independence of one of the Contracting Parties by processes of economic penetration or in any other way, the Contracting Parties will support each other in resistance to such attempts. Should the_ *European Power* _concerned thereupon embark on hostilities against one of the Contracting Parties, the provisions of Article I will apply.'_ Bold text mine to draw attention to the different words that are undefined. Secret Protocol attached to the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland signed on the 25 August 1939 (Excerpt) _'The Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Polish Government are agreed upon the following interpretation of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and binding._ _1. (a) By the expression "a_ *European Power* _" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany._ _(b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a_ *European Power other than Germany* _, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.'_
@@gagamba9198 Quite, it was March 1939, not 1921 and was directed at German aggression, albeit in a secret protocol. Any other power (which, realistically meant the Soviet Union), and it was discussion time.
@@CBfrmcardiff And likely suffered enormous casualties. That is what the French were afraid of in 1939. Ww1 has shown that the defense was superiors and attacks risked high casualty rates. The French were not willing to risk suffering such losses.. Just like in the latter stages of WW1. Your statement might be true for the French Army in 1914. But it is not true of the French Army in 1918.
@@nooneatall8072 Well, it is a conventional view that both the British and the French were conditioned by WW1 to avoid reckless attacks in WW2. However, back in 1918 their armies were battering away at the Germans, so I imagine that attitude developed as more of a post-war thing. Of course, the particular generals in charge deserve some specific blame, but when battalions take all day to capture a village from a single machine gun, then the lack of energy would seem to permeate the whole organisation.
The question here is truly: would the Soviet Union have invaded on the 17th if France and Britain showed more resolve in those early days? Being attacked from two directions certainly did not help Poland and precluded any defense on the Romanian Bridgehead.
@Munitia Blastpaw I just want a happier ending to Westerplatte where the British show up with a few destroyers off the Hel Penninsula and save our heroes.
@@johnstanczyk4030 probably not, Stalin wanted to take most advantage possible of the Nazi-Western fight, so he would have avoid this risk in my opinion
My Canadian brain is still reeling over the fact that the French advanced 8 km over a 32 km front...and that area included TWELVE TOWNS! Good luck finding an area that size in Central Canada with more than 4.
I remember trying this twice when I played HOI2 all those years ago: The first time I got lucky and managed to capture a Ruhr-Provice probably containing some vital industry and the German Army wasn't able to recapture it. Still took several months, though until they were eventually defeated. The Second time I lost spectacularly. The German conquest of Poland was only delayed a few weeks and that was it.
Well my best run as Poland in HoI2 was the annexation of the entire Third Reich (including Lower Countries and northern France) by Poland signed on 24th December 1939, so it's not a best historical source ;)
HOI is not realistic in this game German is op and even by playing like the greatest strategic with France the game was made to help Germany so much you can have a civil war if you declare war too early so paradox want to made France weak and Germany overated
Yeah hoi 4 is funny like that, when soviets wanted to make aliance against germany, that was literally all it would take to prevent WW2, no matter who i play, if im allied with soviets, if they the are the one going on offensive first, germans always get crushed within months.
The problem was that Poland started secret mobilisation already in January, knowing how much time it would take, but the Allies did nothing and even demanded Poland to cancell (!) mobilisation as late as August! To the very last moment they totally believed Hitler that there would be no war, even when the most valuable ships of the Polish fleet were already en route to England, because Poland was totally certain there will be a war and those ships were meant against USSR, but against Germany in Baltic Sea they were sitting ducks.
The sad truth is that the French government ordered a limited invasion "pour sauver l'honneur" : The Sarre offensive objective was to pretend that France fulfilled its obligations regarding Poland. Before the war a socialist french newspaper published an article with the title "Why would one die for Danzig?" Danzig being the German name of Gdańsk, Poland's principal seaport on the Baltic sea. That sentence was in the minds of all the French soldiers during the Sarre offensive : Why should I die for Danzig?
That's what they say about Rommel in North Africa. It wasn't so much Rommel's brilliance as British and Commonwealth incompetence. But it was better for the British to build up the desert fox than admit their own failings. Once the British learned how to fight with tanks, infantry and an air force all working together, they were more than a match for the Germans.
Then why did it take so long for the allies to finish Germany. From when the war turned against Germany in 1943 it took 2 years for the russians to reach Berlin and one year for the West after the landings in Normandy. Germans were superior
If only the French army and the British Expeditionary Force sat on the Maginot Line, filling the weakspots, the Germans then couldn't have outmanuvered them in Belgium and then drive around the major obstacles of the Maginot Line without a fight. The French also knew it was perfectly possible to drive tank units through the Ardennes, because they did it themselves just a few months before attack on France, with their own improvised tank unit. They just chose to pretend it didn't happen.
It's ironic revisiting France's disposition in the 20th Century towards war. in 1914, the desire for retribution for the Franco-Prussian War saw France adopt a doctrine of fanatical and suicidal offensives to avert the humiliation in 1870. Then by 1939/40, France's doctrine had change dramatically to defensive in nature. Both times, they got it wrong.
This is not accurate. Every army in 1914 shared the same offensive doctrine, for legitimate military reasons, not "to avert the humiliation in 1870". The French didn't beat the Schlieffen plan with fanatical and suicidal offensives. That's ludicrous. How can you even say they got it wrong when they literally defeated the Schlieffen plan?
Let's look at the totality of the circumstances. Both the Schlieffen Plan and Plan XVII were flawed, both total failures. The Schlieffen Plan didn't capture Paris, and Plan XVII didn't capture Alsace, moreover, the Schlieffen Offensive was only checked after Plan XVII was abandoned and Joffre retreated to defend Paris (which he only succeeded through pure dumb luck by launching a concentrated attack as Moltke was spreading out his forces to surround and lay siege to Paris, had Joffre been met with a concentrated and prepared German line at the Marne, I think history would look very different today), and I'd call that getting it wrong. You're right, the French didn't defeat Germany with fanatical and suicidal offensives, prior to 1918, nearly every French victory was a defensive action, but that doesn't mean they didn't needlessly sacrifice their men in the Spring and Autumn of 1915, or again at the Aisne in 1917.
As a Pole who is also Canadian, I have to say that France proved to be a cowardly nation in 1939 and Britain too. If you think about the fact that Poland's far worse equipped army (compared to Germany) were able to fight and resist for 5 weeks against Germany AND the Soviet Union... Imagine what could have been done if France and Britain actually properly DID something? Instead France briefly tried an attack and gave up. The "relieving pressure" strategy by attacking Germany's west side made 100% sense. Even the Soviet Union may have cancelled its invasion of Poland from the east if they had seen the allies attacking Germany in full force to defend Poland. Lastly, by preventing Germany from taking over Poland and keeping them off balance by them having to fight 3 countries instead of just 1, Germany would not have been allowed to grow as strong as they did by 1940 and France and all of Europe would not have fallen to them. Imagine if NATO countries today just decided "I know we signed agreements to defend each other, but nahhhh we gotta worry about ourselves so sorry we can't help" if one of the NATO countries got attacked these days. Ridiculous.
There is a reply above with more detail. Unfortunately, Poland's & Allies plan collapsed in first couple of weeks. The Western Allies just weren't set up to make the necessary attacks in Sept 1939. There just hadn't been enough time to coordinate & implement the plan pre-war. France had to go from a strictly defensive mentality (& military), to an attacking force from early 1939 after the pact with Poland. The strategy was also hampered by Belgium & Luxembourg trying to stay neutral. Poland was caught in the middle of Hitler & Stalin, & was trying to get the best deal it could. Poland looked to have an Anti Soviet Alliance with Hitler, but talks fell through, when both sides wanted the same parts of Russia. It should have done an alliance with the Allies sooner (i.e earlier than early 1939), but it just didn't happen. From then on, it's future was in the hands of fate. That said, the Allies could have done a lot more, but knowing Poland was lost, I believe they retreated early hoping for another round of talks/treaties, that had been happening since 1936. If France couldn't defeat Germany in a few weeks, it's forces would effectively get trapped on the wrong side of the Saar & Rhine rivers, & wiped out.
Germany doesn't have to fight Poland at full force since they already was in agreement with Soviet Unioun on how to split Poland the Soviets are enough trouble for the poles. The French General made the right call in retreating to better defensive line back in France because the French Soldiers aren't advancing quick enough anyways and the Germans were going to pour in with much higher morale plus with their home front morale.
@@pax6833 To be fair to the Poles, if the French (& British) had stated that they would do a particular thing, & didn't keep to it, then the Poles have a right to feel aggrieved (even if they didn't help themselves with their dispositions). The French bombed Berlin once, & could have used their air force at least far more. The biggest issue was lack of coordination between Poland & France, as they signed their mutual aid Treaty too late for the French to get ready to do their part of the plan (& French inability). Using a derogatory term for a people doesn't help your cause.
i see you point but Britain at beginning had a small army i suppose it did not want to lose it in the first year as we could halted it in 1939/40 but it would restarted in 45/46 if Hitler was left in power
Blitzkreig wasnt a tactic per say, but a desired effect. "Blitzkreig" to my knowledge wasnit mentioned in German documentation, but was used by the allied nations to describe Germany's early successes. Germany employed combined arms attacks, concentrated armor, and encirclement tactics to great effect early on in the war.
It's an English problem but the real word is bewegungskrieg and western Media called it Blitzkrieg probably as it's hard to read the word bewegungskrieg in English from what I know
If you read books that cover communications between Guderian and general headquarters, he was overkilling the plan and was asked to stop. Blitzkrieg was such a stunning success for two reasons: 1. Guderian didn't listen and kept pushing. 2. Instead of sitting on the Maginot Line French and British took a trip to Belgium. Guderian just outmanuvered them, and then drove through the weakspots of the Maginot Line that were not covered because everyone went to Belgium. He literally just drove around the major obstacles. If the French stiffed the weakspots of the Maginot Line, it would have been a lot more difficult for Germany to win. Same goes for British Expeditionary Force. It didn't go down in a fight. It was just outmanuvered and then evacuated before suffering any significant losses in a fight.
The Allies were hoping the Nazis would continue East and get stuck into USSR. They didn't appease Hitler, they enabled him in the hopes that the Nazis and the Communists would take each other out.
I've always suspected that memories of the Battles of the Frontier in 1914 might have had something to do with it. Plan XVll was so disastrous it cast a long shadow.
This wasn't the story I was expecting by the title. Facinating new learning for me this was, but consider that just prior to the invasion of France, French pilots reported the huge gathering of German mechanized divisions, just sitting along a long open road. The French command didn't believe the reports and did nothing. A few bombing raids could have ended the Blitzkreig right then and there.
Yes and no. The idea is attractive, but in practice, Tactical support of ground forces wasn't really an integral part of Western doctrine at the time and the French bomber force of the time was woefully inadequate for the task. OTOH the Germans had extensive experience of that type of warfare thanks to the Spanish Civil war and their 1940 Fighter Arm would have made mincemeat of French bombers, very rapidly.
The entire invasion of France largely tdue to being lashed years ahead of what was really needed was up against a VERY stiff timetable. If they had been stalled for even a few days in significant numbers it would have potentially given the Allies forces enough time to mobilize and deploy and essentially turn the blitz into another trench war (ironically similar to what we are seeing in Ukraine) that the Heer simply couldn’t afford to fight and FRANKLY everybody knew it.
I have a suggestion for a "today I learned" -- the term Blitzkrieg was an invention of Allied reporters. The Germans called it "Bewegunskrieg" (I'm sure I mauled the spelling) or "movement warfare". Blitzkrieg sounds better, but I think an exploration of how the doctrine and terminology came about might be an interesting deep dive.
Not sure.. only if the name was coined before May 1940. The Phoney War as the British called the situation on the Rhine front in those days was named 'Sitzkrieg' by the Germans, so by then the name Blitzkrieg was common
Movement war was Prussian military doctrine going back at least to the days of Friedrich the Great. What made it so effective in world war 2 was the fully mechanised panzer divisions combined with their close air support could move so much faster and provide more concentrated firepower than any other military formations that had come before in history. All while still maintainig effective command and control through radios.
The Wehrmacht never used the term „Blitzkrieg“. The „Bewegungskrieg“ was the logical development of the war doctrines of Friedrich the Great and Napoleon with the new weapons „tanks“ and „fighter and bomber aircrafts. Plus the stormtroopers tactics from WW1 with Rommel as one of the best known representative. The combined warfare (= Gefecht mit verbundenen Waffen) made this kind of warfare possible. The opposite of Bewegungskrieg is the Sitzkrieg (= lit. „sitting war“) which is called the „phony war“ in the USA or GB. Which marks the period of the declaration of war from the Allie’s and the German invasion of the Benelux-countries and France.
Anti-German agreement: The British-French one-sided Guarantee of Poland should have been cancelled immediately after the Soviet Union invaded East Poland - to stop the war spreading. The war simply should never have started in the first place - that is, the Germans should never have signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and Europe should have started negotiations on how to handle the Danzig question.
The claim that Germany had nothing to defend its western border with is simply wrong. It had over thirty divisions stationed there shortly after the invasion began, including a fair number of first-rate infantry divisions. It would have taken a very vigorous attack to break through, and as the video says the French simply were not prepared to launch such an intensive campaign. Good that a video is out debunking the pop history myth.
well...the allies still went in with three to four times that many...i think with that numbers you might be able to say 'nope. not gonna win that one' if the allied even tried at that moment..
@@satakrionkryptomortis The Allies did NOT go in with three to four times many. Plus, having divisions does NOT mean preparedness to go on the attack. The French military was just not ready to go on the attack. Not with its weapons, not with its command culture, not with its lack of command of the air. The Germans noted after the Battle of the Saar that while the French were very skillful in matters of camouflage and methodical approach under cover, even weak counterattacks were sufficient to drive the French out of a recently-captured position. The French military just was't ready to attack.
More than once I have read or heard in French or English films disparaging statements that Poland collapsed after 5 weeks. And now the facts: 1. France. - an army twice as large as Poland's - 100,000 British Expeditionary Force - 100,000 Polish army recreated in France (the French were not eager to equip it well and use it at the front) - many modern, better than German tanks - relatively modern aviation - on most of the border with Germany the Maginot Line - attack only from the north-east 2. Poland - 900,000 against 1.5 Germans, 1.5 Russians - 50,000 Slovaks - about 100 modern light tanks - obsolete aviation - attack from all sides Effect: 1. France - complete failure and after 6 weeks - at the time of surrender, most of the territory and a large part of the army were outside the German occupation - signed capitulation - creation of Petain's collaborationist government 2. Poland - complete failure after 5 weeks - occupation of the entire territory by the occupiers - destruction of all regular divisions of the Polish Armed Forces - no capitulation of the Polish state - no collaborationist government - Recreation of the army first in France and later in England - in 1945, the Polish army was the fourth army among the allies with about 400,000 soldiers in the battle line Conclusion: We always keep our agreements (if Germany attacked France, we would definitely strike) and often we end up badly at it.
To really highlight just how incompetent the French were, the Polish with antiquated equipment and a much smaller army survived as long against a German invasion in the west and a Soviet invasion in the east as the French did on one front with a larger army, superior equipment and with pre-built fortifications against only the Germans.
PL was asked by its allies to delay the general mobilisation on 29th of August. As a result, PL lost 10 motorised divisions during the invasion this way.
I remember a series called "the World at War" which interview various survivors of the conflict. One of them, a German officer, pointed out during the phony war had the French attacked when they were in Poland, they had little way to defend them. Obviously this is but one officers opinion, but it is an interesting one. Unfortunately the French took the attitude "We won't shoot at them, they might shoot back"
The most important parts of a war are the beginning. Look at the Ukraine Invasion it was supposed to take the capital and knock out resistance in the north. It failed, and Ukraine was able to mount a counter offensive. If it had succeeded Russia probably wouldn't be fighting in a war in first place.
How many TH-cam channels are you on Simon? Omg lol I thought this was the Decoding channel and couldn’t figure out why I didn’t have a notification for it. 😅 Well done
British complaining about the US not joining the war against Germany before Pearl Harbor is especially ironic when they didn't do anything to stop the Germans before the invasion of Poland. And then didn't do anything until the Germans invaded Norway.
@@Mmjk_12 I think maybe the combined Anglo French armies might have been able to accomplish something if they told Hitler invading Czechoslovakia would have meant war. Sure earlier US involvement would have changed the war. FDR tried everything he could, but Hitler wouldn't play ball. And without an attack FDR was powerless to intervene, only Congress can declare war, and US public opinion was against sending troops to fight another European war. At the very least, war over Czechoslovakia would have changed the whole war. Hitler wouldn't have been able to invade Poland. And most likely would have had to defend eastern Germany from the Poles while fighting in the west against the combined British French armies. Fascinating what if.
@@Mmjk_12 I not complaining about any of that. I completely agree. My complaint is just against the people who say the US just sat out and did nothing. When a, the US Army was even less prepared for another world war then the British. And b, the US arms industry couldn't even support our own defense.
@@Mmjk_12 One thing for sure, we can't allow anything similar to that to happen again. We don't need another world war, especially in this day and age.
The problem is that the French army in 1939 was geared entirely for defence, and employed vast numbers of troops manning the Maginot Line instead utilising them as available mobile and offensive troops. It has to be said that the Germans had their own defensive line, the Siegfried Line, and the 43 'depleted' divisions were still capable of resisting for a considerable amount of time against a possible French attack, enabling reinforcements to arrive to strengthen the line. In other words, the Germans had better and more flexible organisational and command and control ability than the French. Simple as that. In 1939-40 the French army was not trained to carry out deep penetration attacks against a strong enemy, it was a mass conscript army designed primarily to defend and execute limited counter attacks.
I love the fact that "contemporary historians" decide to hypothesize that the attack never stood a chance. But while we're doing the counter factual thing, do they think it would have led to a worse result than that in fact ensued in well less than a year?
@@brandonvasser5902 I think he means the later invasion of France would have been worse. But then, maybe the Resistance would more widespread from the getgo? Maybe what became Dunkerque would have evolved in a counteroffensive instead of a rescue operation?
@@borisos9832 I've taken it as the French (& Britain) didn't want to have large French forces trapped on the wrong side of a river in Germany. Once Poland was finished, & German reserves came back, they would have been smashed. We have to remember the surprise the Allied High Command had when the Soviets invaded Poland. The French & British thought they had more time initially. With hindsight, they had nothing to lose, they can't have done worse then they actually did in 1940. The French & British needed to push everywhere whilst they had an advantage, to grab as much German territory as possible, & take pressure off Belgium. They could have retreated & left screening forces, but given themselves more time to respond to the expected German attack. The issues were that the French Army & Air Force (& Belgian) thinking was purely defensive in nature, & they weren't set up for attack in 1939. Also, French & British politicians had been cowered by the fear of the Luftwaffe's bombers doing great damage to French cities, as at that time, everyone believed bombers would get through to their targets. The politicians still hoped to negotiate a way out of the situation.
@@eze8970 Quality answer there, EZ. Another consideration was that both Britain and France respected the neutrality of Belgium and the Netherlands. During WWI, The Netherlands was "the lung through which Germany breathed." Invading it looked like a complete dick move. I could devote screeds to Fall Gelb and how risky it was. But that's another video entirely.
@@stephenlitten1789 Thank you for your reply. Yes, I'd forgotten Germany got various imports during WW1 through the Netherlands, one of them being cement for their concrete fortifications. The Dutch being scared of German invasion & dividing their forces between Belgium & German borders didn't work out well for them. Neutrality hindered the Allies in a big way, even if the Allies could have been on the Belgian/German border, it would have helped in a big way. The Germans were fortunate during Fall Gelb, it shouldn't have worked (or at least would have been a lot slower, which could have had other consequences). If I recall, they tricked the French into keeping a lot of their reserves initially behind the Maginot Line, facing only only a third of their strength German divisions. Allied general intelligence & lack of recon over the Ardennes was unforgiveable, & Allied High Command was still wedded to WW1 principles, resulting in very poor thinking. The French Airforce not being properly mobilised was also unforgiveable. The Germans had good practice previously from the Rhineland on, of their capabilities, & how to invade a country, the Allies were years behind there. The French either needed to spend more on the Maginot line, or on mobile reserves, the compromise they settled on (neither), saved money, but didn't work. Only seen one wargame on the invasion of France/Low Countries, but it's actually one with lots of interesting variables.
The Char B was a better tank, on paper, but it's 1 man turret limited the tank from being good at a tank. The commander for example, had to find the bad guys, load the 47mm gun, shoot the gun, and command the tank. If he was the unit commander he had to communicate with other tanks. The tank also didn't have a radio in many cases, and the times it did it was often a receiving only radio. The Panzer 2 might have been a better tank since it had a 2 man turret.
@@gerriekipkerrie6736 Yes, but the PzKpfw II had a loader crewmember, who was behind the driver, that loaded shells into the main gun, so the commander didn't have to. This made firing the main gun much quicker. Some of the French crewmen in Char Bs would clear out after getting peppered by coordinated fire from multiple German tanks, even though the rounds couldn't actually penetrate their armor.
It was still good as a 'ram tank'. Those tanks could have caused a lot of mayhem if were properly supported by more flexible machines, infantry and had aircover. There is a memory by german officer who fought on the East Front, but he said that nowhere did he feel as hopeless as in France when fighting against Char B tanks. He wrote it didn't matter from what did they shoot, at what distance or angle, it just did nothing and the monster kept pushing.
@@piotrmalewski8178 A tank designed with 2 guns is not supposed to be a ram tank... Just trying to save this tank with this argument prooves it's a useless pile of steel. B1bis is just a tactical annoyment during an hour for the opponent, not a tool to win a battle.
You can't win wars without public support, and you can't have public support without a laundry list of reasons why the enemy is in fact the enemy. You can only get that with time
I am from the saar-region. My grand-pa was an soldier who was working on the construction of the westwall ( aka "siegfriedline") - and I can you assure that in 39 a great part of the westwall was NOT completed. The concrete-works were mostly done, but the "interior" of most pill-boxes and bunkers were empty - especially no weapons, no commication equipment, no wiring. also a great part of the trenches between the bunkers and pill-boxes were not finished. The westwall was finally completed and "operational" in March 1940 - and an big amount of the installations and weapons that where then installed in the westwall were "looted" from the techoslovakian fortifications of the so-called Benesch-Line (even when the german propaganda has always telled a different story)! an other thing that you schould mention is the ammunition-situation: The german Wehrmacht had created 3 big stockpiles of ammunition for the case of an war: one for the eastern-front, one for the western front and one central as reserve. But it prooved that the ammunition consumption of the german troops was much much higher then expected. After the "Poland-Invasion" the whole "eastern-front" ammunition stockpile was empty, and the whole "central-reserve" stockpile too and even some of the ammunitions of the "western-front" stockpile have been sent to the german units fighting in Poland. Even with full-force-production the german ammunition-industrie was not able to refill the german ammunition stockpiles till April 1940 to pre-war-levels! Also the losses that the polish defenses inflicted to the german agressors is mostly under-estimated. For example, the total number of german tanks in December 1939 was at under 225, mostly Panzer II and looted tchechoslovakian t-35 (t) and t - 38 (t) and their were no more than a dozen of the "famous" Panzer III´s that were still operational, the rest was in repair.... and so a lot of other german military-equipment not only of the Heer( Army), but also of the Luftwaffe. So I think the chance of the "saar-offensive" was much bigger than thought. But the French- like the British-Government booth believed that, due to their full-force (secret) armament procuring programms, every minute they can "postphone" the "real battle", will be to their advantage. and so they missed the "window of opportunity". And they gave the german Wehrmacht the necessary time to recover, re-organise and re-ammunition and to improve their weaponry with better, newer weapons.
"blitzkrieg" is NOT a type of battle tactic! the blitzkrieg doctrine simply describes overrunning and overwhelming a country, often times with heavy armour spearheads, before supply chains or prolongued attrition come into effect. it is at best a way of strategic thinking and not to be changed up with the tactic of armoured spearheads or thunderruns, even though these most likely will come into effect.
If so double check on Wikipedia, there is no clear definition, word has no origin in German handbooks, doctrine or tactics but in western media. Term is used to refer to tactics, operational, terror element and what not. Pretty sure the the first time I personally learned of the term it was explained as what now is referred to as thunder-runs with large concentration of tanks followed by efficient supply/logistics behind the tanks, but if Wikipedia is to believed no one is correct about exactly what the term refers to (since it western media term has never been clearly defined)
@@RandomStuff-he7lu Just because the Nationalsozialisten called it "Moderne Kriegsführung" doesnt mean, that it didnt existed. It is a new name just like Nazis is a new name for Nationalsozialisten. So dont be false smart.
This scheme did not begin or end on September 1939 and surely was not restricted to France, but rather carefully generated by Great Britain. Also remember that the Poles had fought well; given the circumstances. It was (and still is) the end product of Anglo-Saxon kind of perception of the world. To merely list and then, attentively examine the Western attitude, adopted versus Germany and Soviet Union from 1918 onwards is quite illuminating. Furthermore, the comparison of the oh so widely discrepant posture against Weimar (1918-1933) and Nazi Germany (1934-1940; yep up until April 40, long after that the war is launched) would be even more instructive.
The Allies demanded that Poland should cancel mobilisation as late as 30th of August! They totally believed that Hitler would not attack if his demands are met. Poland only managed to field that many troops because secret mobilisation started as early as January. Yet mobilisation was called off on August 30th. If not the Allies, Polish Army could have fielded up to 1.5 million troops. With foreign supply of additional weapons, it could have been even between 2-3 million, there were that many volunteers interested in joining. If only not this Allied sabotage, the Battle of Bzura could have been won and Germany would be stuck in Poland for months to come. Played well, Germany could have lost the war in one year.
@@piotrmalewski8178 Well, it was (and still is) not the first time that Western powers, essentially the Anglo-Saxons throw a country (Poland in this case) to the wolves, isn't it? It is easy to conceive that coming to the rescue was not their intention at all; especially in the light of the quite instructive events, such as "phoney war" or intention to intervene to Finno- Soviet conflict, to recite just a few, limited to the first phase of WW2, not counting many other "blunders", leading to war. I want also enphasize another important point; presuming you are Polish. Poland had aspired to the dominance of whole Eastern Europe trough Miedzymorze (a concept now called Intermarium) in the past, but failed to attain its goal twice during 14th century; not solely due to Hungary's insistence to retain its own sovereignty, but also on account of unavoidable geopolitical reality (which does not exclude the crucial value of the position that Poland holds in Eastern Europe; ex- socialist defense treaty is not entitled as Warsaw in vain or USA is not presently patronizing the wildest dreams of Polish nationalists for the sake of the jokes). They are encouraging the same delusion, just to look after their own interests to the expense of others'.
I think there is another overlooked factor- the questionable loyalty of French elites and military brass. Many of them would prefer a foreign fascist enemy than that of the people. Often, their deepest sympathies were for fascist dominance and maintenance of their status quo, not democratic rule by disgruntled masses.
The French wouldn’t have provided him with the medium artillery or maneuver brigades he would have needed for his type of warfare & wouldn’t have allowed him anywhere near their forces.
To start a major offensive you need a fully mobilised army, and soldiers that have undergone at least a few weeks of training and were explained what and why. When Poland announced general mobilisation, the Allies forced it to CANCEL mobilisation, as late as August 30th! 1939! So you can imagine the level of preparation in France. The reason why Poland managed to give any resistance at all, was that secret mobilisation was started as early as January, and before general mobilisation was announced and then cancelled, hundreds of thousands troops had already been in their units and many had months of training behind them. As much as a conscipt army can be, they could be considered elite units, and still didn't stand a chance. It is also a fact that Poland was so much afraid of Allies capacity to give Hitler whatever he wanted, that the plan was to defend the country at the lenght of borders, rather than forming a central ring of defence, which would have been a lot more efficient from the military perspective. It wasn't done, because Polish officials believed that if they give up Silesia, Gdańsk and parts of Greater Poland without a fight, Hitler would then ask for peace and ask Allies to acknowledge his gains under argument that Poland did not defend them. In other words, Poland was afraid of another Munich agreement, and that's why it assummed the worst possible battle plan it could. Again, Allied sabotage, only at this instance only expected.
The Luftwaffe started the war with civilian bombings in Poland. Recieving the same tactics you employed is what happens in war, Germany just thought they could win the air war. That's why even Imperial Japan wasn't stupid enough to use chemical weapons on western troops, but had no problem with using them on Chinese forces
@@DavidSonofDavid Did you consider the context of my comment? One of the reasons the western Allies didn't set fire to the Black Forest was because it was deemed illegal to destroy property. Later in the war, they were bombing civilians. There's a sad irony to that. Did you purposely make the argument that both the Allied and Axis powers committed crimes against humanity?
The Allied Powers doing something terrible does not make the Axis powers the good guys the Nazis tried to make Jews, Slavs, and many others extinct the Japanese Empire committed horrible atrocities on the Koreans and Chinese and they even killed more people than the Nazis did.
Cry me a river! Germany started it, we fought back using the same tactics, and won. That the Allies were eventually stronger isn't unfair, or cruel or morally dubious, it was an appropriate response. Your lot were not innocent victims.
Well familiar with this story thanks to Dr. Mark Felton's channel on here, the half-hearted "help" that was issued was really regrettable, and I think the Pol's did an admirable job of defending with their outdated armory and over-reliance on horse backed cavalry. Of course, their army was HUGE so that helped them out somewhat.
Truth is we could have done a lot better, but a lot of our generals prove to be covardly and incompetent. Popular history remembers the brave and frantic ones like Kleeberg who was the last to give up, and only because he ran out of ammo, but several others panicked, had mental breakdowns, some even abandoned their own troops. The whole Bzura counteroffensive collapsed because some generals did not execute orders and did not support the offensive, and some panicked and went for withdrawal. There was also no 'general battle plan', the whole defence was improvised under a paradigm that less than optimal strategy has to be assumed, to show that Poland will defend and part of its land, even if that didn't make sense from militaristic point of view. What really held the defence was frantic dedication of lower rank officers and common soldiers, and those few brilliant determined generals like Kutrzeba, Maczek or Kleeberg. As for the horse cavalry it wasn't as outdated as the popular belief speaks. Polish cavalry was armed, among other things, with anti-tank rifles, 37mm Bofors anti-tank cannons, 40mm anti-air autocannons with anti-tank capability, and 75mm low-velocity field guns. They were more like high speed infantry with decent anti-tank ability and the most commonly used tactic was to move quickly from place to place and set up traps of machineguns and anti-tank weapons. It just happened theat they still carried sabers and were trained in swordfighting, but the charging attack was hardly used in this campaign, and it was only meant to be used against suprised infantry and artillery pointing at totally different direction than the attack was coming from. Otherwise they fought infantry style only.
@badofi Aside from the fact that revisionists tend to ignore what has been found about Hitler and the Nazi regime worked, it's often forgotten that Poland had ability to read German codes already back in the early 30s. And another very important factor is hardly ever brought up; Poland hand extremely good espienage in Germany, because having 2/3rds of the country occupied by Germany and Austria for over 120 years, there were lots of Poles speaking perfect German and knowing German culture and having German friends and relatives. For other reasons, there were also many Germans loyal to Poland rather than to Germany. Yet another fact: even though formally in the opposing alliances, Polish intelligence cooperated with Japan untill the end of the war. Polish spies worked with Japanese, drove around IIIrd Reich in Japanese consullar cars, and even had radio in the Japanese embassy in Berlin, because Japan relatively much contact with Poland since the XIXth century and didn't trust Hitler, but did trust Poland. Polish Intelligence services had probably the best possible knowledge on what Hitler would actually do.
1:40 "in case of foreign invasion" It is worthwhile to think about this for a moment. Why did the UK not declare war on the Soviet Union as well? The answer lies in the secret protocol attached to the "Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland". It states that the defensive assistance would be granted against Germany. For other powers, there would only be "consultations".
Very good question! And when germany did, why wait so long? BINGO! Because its Not about Poland, Not about Some idealistic reasons to go to War. Their "politic" Was always about: "manipulate THEM into Fighting and pray they just kill each other" Why go to War YOURSELF for SOME reason, when you can make THEM kill each other for ANY reason and then be the hero. Also very bravely Soldiers from Australia and New Zealand were sent 1st line for the Fighting experiance, These countrys were So deeply hoping for. Again...why should you Fight on your own, when you can just send the people from countrys you graciously welcomed to your Commonwealth, for their benefit, of course. Really wonder why they Not just sent indians...they got people... and after slaughtering them, raping the country, taking everything they got, stealing their complete history and treating then as non-humans...ah fuck... i meant "gave them demogracy", they couldnt wait to get this Adolf guy. Naaaa right... they worshiped him, because in his hatefull, sick Theories He imaginized them to be "Humans", what was against the believe and treatment of their collonial Demigods. These Indian Nazis...
The main reason, is that most of the British Empire, like the ANZACS, were still recovering from the Great Depression, which, in the case of NZ, was directly caused by both WW1 and the Spanish Flu occurring one after the other, then straight into WW2 without any kind of gap or breather. Great Britain escaped the worst of the fallout of those issues, though they were affected. The ANZACS copped the worst of them.
In the end everything is controlled by jewish zionists and jewish zionists are friends with jewish zionists, isnt really that special. And one day another nation will try to get rid of the people that abuse them and all of us will believe the lies we are told to kick our friends to the ground once again.
@@TheMapman01 Actually the soviet union doesnt exist anymore so there i no possible relation. Also the relation to russia is obviously bad since Germany is a country in the west and the west hates russia. And the relation to ukraine is obviously good since Germany is a country in the west and the west loves ukraine. The relations to soviet politics is very good since todays German government and supporters love both communism and hate towards germans.
The French needed a Patton, not Gamelin. If they would have started a speedy attack it would have forced Germany to move troops from Poland to the Western Front. It was a lack of will and a war exhaustion that the French suffered from their horrified experience in WWI. Interesting how Germany used its defeat in WWI to energize their country and France which suffered heavily in the first World War, suffered from a lack will and confidence by the time WWII started. I think the French Resistance was so fierce and active due to some of the reasons when the Germans became so formidable in WWII. Sometimes we learn lessons from defeat and fire is what is needed to temper steel.
The French had a potential Patton. As early as 1934 De Gaulle was advocating for rapid battlefield maneuvers using concentrated armored tanks and mechanized infantry for a potential strike into Germany to enforce the Versailles Treaty as well as to compensate for France's smaller population size.
@@gobanito I'm grateful for De Gaulle as I think he gave the French encouragement through the Resistance to continue the fight, not to mention aiding in the Normandy invasion behind the enemy lines.
Simon, why have casual criminalist episodes slowed down? They used to be twice weekly on the days stated on your Spotify page. I need my bi weekly fix!
Could you cite some of the historians who say that the Saar Offensive couldn't have succeed even if properly pressed home? I've heard that claim from a number of non-historians, but have struggled to find historians who actually say it; totally prepared for the possibility that I just don't know where to look, ofc
I doubt many historians would even speculate on this... To many unknowns. That being said - its a VERY long way from the Saarland to Berlin and even the close Ruhrgebiet and Rhein / Main areas arent accessible without crossing the Rhein and the French attack would have have to cross mountains and forests. Or in other words - Germany could have much faster bring back troops from Poland as reinforcements than the French could have done real damage to Germany.
@@bingobongo1615 well I'm thinking more like could the French have taken the Siegfried Line &/or occupied a substantial portion of the area (I suppose necessary to do the former to achieve the latter). That wouldn't necessarily have *ended* the war, but it would have made it a very different war-- Germany coulda done a lot less damage externally if they were bogged down fighting over their own territory, &c
The biggest problem with the Saar Offensive was that a successful execution would require general mobilisation to have been complete and troops after at least a few weeks of training before the start. The Allies forced Poland to cancel general mobilisation as late as August 30 1939, which decreased the number of available soldiers by 100-300 thousand and caused chaos and Poland only managed to field about 700 thousand soldiers because secret mobilisation was started as early as January. The Allies totally believed Hitler and did not have their own forces mobilised, which made any offensive (or defensive) operation impossible.
PM Neville Chamberlain signed the agreement partly to give Brittany time to rearm. The British produced 50% more planes, ships, submarines, tanks and other munitions than the Germans in the period from September, 1938 and May, 1940. Albert Speer and other Germans have noted this in various books.
Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany, Poland and Hungary. Should they attack three countries? English Wikipedia geography map: Sequence of events following the Munich Agreement.
Where did Germany ( who were bankrupt after WW1) get all there money from to re militarize and build all their infrastructure up from?????? Do a video on that!!
Here’s a question. Why did the allies ignore the Soviet unions acquisition of Bessarabia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and eastern Poland then later all of Poland in favour of waging a global war on a nation for demanding the return of a small city in Poland with a majority German population that wanted to become part of the Reich?
War is terrible nobody wins. My family was in England during this time and I had 3 uncles in fighting. My father was too old to be a soldier but worked in Manchester constructing aeroplanes. My mother had 3 children to look after on her own dad only coming home once a fortnight. There was an air raid shelter in the backyard where she had to take us children to when the siren went off. Life was very hard for all. At the end of the war when dad was home the British Government asked British families to invite young German soldiers to their homes to celebrate Christmas. My mother and father did this and found out his parents address and sent a parcel to them. The problem was not with the people but with the German Government. And isn't that the case today. Governments are corrupt.
Someone chosed the German government Sadly this political party had the biggest approve of German society, they could win democratically next elections but they chosed another way (so it isn't like it was in Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Poland in 1945-1989 when government was forced)
A long war benefitted the Western Allies. Germnay was the one in a rush... France did a small offensive that did not go well in 1939. Given the experience in WW1 I guess they rather played for time?
The small offensive of 1939 was only made in order to encourage the germans to divert forces from the polish front, but there was never any plan for a major invasion staight away. The aim from the start was to buy time, initially for an offensive early 1940 if the poles could keep germany busy for a few months, but as the poles fell appart after 3 weeks, the plan changed for a large 1941 mecanized offensive. The idea to buy time, and convert superior industrial might toward military for the win was not specificallly a french thing, but the winning stategy of ww2. All allies used it; the brits, the russians, and soviets. The issue here is that first you must contain germany, which is where the french plan obviously failed. The brits had the channel, the US the atlantic, the russians endless territories, but the french had to stop right away the german offensive, which they failed to do by sticking to a (in retrospect) way too dangerous plan, involving sending everything in northern belgium and holland, even the 7th army, the reserve army which role should have been to counter a german breackthrough. The aim was to keep belgium and holland in the war (hence gaining a couple dozen divisions), but ended up with the franco british forces bypassed and encircled by the rushing german army group B.
Well, we were not backed by the British when we wanted to enter Germany in 1936, during the Rhineland remilitarization. And the Belgians deleted our defensive agreements and protested when we wanted to extend the Maginot Line. So let's just say we were not helped a lot, even if we DID fail in 1940. Sidenote : after WWI, GB considered France as the main threat on the continent. The French and British empires were in competition all over the planet. So the British were reluctant to support us during the 30s.
Yes. They could have end it when Germany took the Rheinland. They could have end it when Germany attacked the rest of Czechoslovakia. Poland was their third and last chance to end it before a world war would emerge. Three changes. Three wasted changes.
No, allies could not defeat Germany in 1939. I am from Poland. Most people do not understand how powerful Germany was. It was the most powerful economy in Europe, it had bigger population than Poland + France combined and it had more than 100 fielded divisions in 1939. Poland had 40, much, much weaker. France in Europe before mobilisation had even less than Poland. Poland lost war in first week, before even French mobilisation was complete. Poland in 1933 had already smaller NATIONAL BUDGET than Germany military budget. In 1933! Before Germany rearment. In 1938-1939 Poland had 20 times smaller National budget than Germany military budget. Do you understand the scale? Do you understand our tragedy? It was hopeless fight even without soviet attack. I consider France as a good ally. Both then and now. Greetings to all friends and allies!
@@hatchxable Well having the Communists murder christians, nationalists and anyone that the Communists considered as inferior was fine according to the Allies.
4:02 The frontier wasn't nearly as big as the video makes it sound. Belgium and Denmark didn't enter the war until 1940. In 1939, the Germans only had to defend the narrow border that they shared with the French.
@Simon Whistler that quite famous photo of Hitler greetings Wehrmacht troops in September 1939 was taken in Poméranie, corridor of Danzig area (now and then Poland, before the territory disputed between Poland and Germany)
At the beginning of the war, the Western Allies were only sissies, they would not have stood a chance against the Wehrmacht's(Waffen-SS) professionals.
One of my history professors once said, "Incompetence is what makes history interesting."
Yeah. The thing is, world had to pay 70 million lifes to make history more interesting
it was not "Incompetence". just like dunkirk was not "Incompetence".
Ernst Hanfstängel, close friend of hitler and later secret agent for roosevelt, called them inofficial messages.
my great grandfather was at the western front. he was scared as shit, just like this comrades. the officers were about to putsch hitler, but with no reason the french retreated. the french didnt even need 2 weeks, 2 hours of occupying the rheinland would have been enough. all oil, all metal, all weapon production gone. so why they retreat and wait 1 year for the blitzkrieg?
@@TheMania56 well that incompetence of the French
@@TheMania56 You aren't the smartest, are you? It doesn't even make sense. Stop being a weirdo.
There was no real incompetence with WW2, everybody was trying to avoid another WW1. The French did not attack because they were not ready either. The Ardennes situation is sometimes looked at as incompetence but then again nobody had ever had a chance to use tanks in a heavily wooded area before, even the Germans were not sure if it would work. It however did work and the French just happened not to have any defenses in the Sedan area, and between that and 2 bold German generals (Rommel and Guderian), the French got knocked out in a month.
I'm honestly not sure what's worse, having an ally that doesn't even try to help, or an ally that fails so miserable in it's attempt that it's completely forgotten by major populace
XD France was very useless... Cant forget the betrayal of 1938 from them and UK forcing my country to give up sudeten.
Didnt wanted to give up their comfort.. We all know how it ended. We see same thing happening now in Ukraine. People want to stop helping just so they can buy things little cheaper.
But if Putin stormed europe along with China then all these people would blame everyone but themselves...
I watched Europa the last battle as that is 12 hours long and fills in a lot about this stuff.
I think what's worse is your grammar. Holy moly!
both poland and czechoslovakia trusted their security on france and kept hostile relations one to the other. without the fake alliance they could think of the support of the neighbor.
Why was Poland so unprepared for war, they had existed for 20 years, they should not have needed an ally. The French were not mobilized because they remembered WW1 and did not want a repeat. The French and British were also sort of willing to let Germany have Poland, because it was still believed that Germany was not ready for war. The Poles, the Italians, Czech was seemingly not ready for war even though they had no restrictions on them, unlike Germany.
My Granny told me that there were Polish families glued to radios, crying with joy when England and France declared war. Believe me, when nothing came out of it this was (and is to this day, we know our history in Poland) one of our biggest historical disappointments.
This kind of treatment kept happening even when the war ended. Do you know what was the only Allied nation not invited to the victory parade in London? Yup, you guessed it. Us.
Did the Poles cry with yoy too when Russia invaded Poland on 09/17/1939 and the Brits and Frenchman didn´t help them?
@todayifoundout
Good question! If you consider Russians were there allready, might have been the right time, if you think logicaly.
@thecriticalpole
Did they also cry for Joy, when german heritages were slaughtered by Polishs in the Border region before and after the war?
Or execution of poles by stalins order were covered up by your good friends, that bravely came to help, because they love poland so much?
Here is a little Story:
Lewis and Pierre hanging out.
They dont like anyone else, frankly they dont really like each other.
But they are afraid that, all the other guys Start talking and realize what bullshit they Do the whole time (like with lil Jamaal, Motombo, Kumar and Wang for Exemple).
So they go to Piotr and Tell him Friedrich insulted his mom, because they think He is a bit slow and promise him , to help Piotr if there is trouble.
Then they go to Igor and Tell him, Piotr stole his money and gave it to Friedrich, who is an Asshole anyway and He should go to Friedrich, take his money back and then take Piotr to Gulag. If there are Problems , they help.
Then they watched the nice Action from a far and when Friedrich got Mad, they called Lewis big brother Matthew
Yeah and it didn't end whit the nazi occupation then the Russians came I saw my way back and wow we all know Stalin was evil but damm people really were so scared
@@Peter_Gehlen what do you think? Don't reply straight away. Think about it, take a deep breath, count to 10, wait few minutes and then reply.
@@TurboLazer007 You are right - I meant "joy", not "yoy". Thank you.
I saw a documentary with former legionaries from Czechoslovakia who fought in France. They said they were hated by the French soldiers because they fought hard and the French wanted to give up to end the war.
yeah, the same thing with Polish soldiers in France, there were instances where French military police were arresting Polish soldiers for refusing to surrender, in one case the French Foreign Legion busted them out.
@@olseneudezet1 Not only french had little will to fight for example in british RAF polish pilot would see a lone german bomber, after he asked the commander for premission to attack the commander simply said 'do what you want' ofc the polish pilot engaged and was pretty shocked that the commander was so passive (and this is not the only story like this)
@@Eliktro The Resistance had never been as big as Polish underground forces, the Home Army alone was bigger. When France capitulated, they still had decent capacity to fight, could have lasted weeks if not months longer and de Gaulle believed it but he was the only one.
Meanwhile Poland was totally crushed and as late as April 1940 there were still units of Polish army walking around the country in full uniforms, attacking German police and smaller army units. France lost because it never even wanted to try.
This is why France is not fitting to be the leader of Europe,as Macron wants to think.
Yeah the French got soft after the Napoleon I remember the French revolution all the heads in the streets it was glorious then we got taken over by a midget who was a genius but still after him we lost it all again
as a French guy, I'm ashamed of this story. Gamelin was not the right commander in chief we should have had. A good one would have pushed further in the German territory. This should have been an opportunity to identify efficient officers, promote them and give allies the initiative agains Germany.
But at least you tried something. And it's a lot less shameful than what Hitler and Stalin did.
Being "a French guy" isn't shameful enough all on it's own?
@@Darth-Claw-Killflex less than people who says things like you
Shame should extend to your leaders of today. Is Macron possessing enough balls to deal with the current Russian situation? Or
Ukrainian situation? What about the Germans?
I think we like to look at history and don’t realise that we are living history right now.
@@Xplora213 Obviously, you cannot directly compare both situations and you are not well informed. We are not in war with Russia. We don't have a mutual defense agreement with Ukraine. A direct intervention would certainly escalate to a global nuclear war. We don't have enough stocks of ammonitions to help Ukraine as high as we would like. We help but within acceptable limits for our own protection. In these conditions, we do our best to help the Ukrainian army : provide material and train troops. It's risk management. we could do more but for obvious reasons, we don't do an 'All In'. Also, believe me many western soldiers directly fight, on their own initiative, on the ground, but not only...
Hitler once said, that if the Allies invaded Germany in 1936 during the remilitarization of Rhineland, the nazies would've been wiped out. It's crazy to think that once we had a chance to prevent the deadliest conflict in human history in a few days
Oh well, in hindsight, everything looks simple.
Yes, it's crazy to think about it, and not only the allies, but also a lot of germans would've been glad to not go down that rabbit hole - again, in hindsight.
But this applies to so many points in history.
You all seem to forget that both the French and Brits and the low countries were still pretty shellshocked by WW1. Even if the Allies invaded Germany during Rhineland that would be seen as a war of aggresion. many people thought that rhineland was just 'Germans walking into their backyard'. And that war would still have a lot of casualities.
@@Tommy-sr7hl meh, propaganda could’ve made it look like an act of pacification. I mean, I’m Ukrainian, I know a thing or two about hatred toward enemy. If somebody say that we have to wipe a couple of Russian cities to prevent another war 10 years after the current one, I would not bat an eye about it, and I believe that Brits and French wouldn’t either
World War declarations came from the West - not from Germany or the Soviet Union. Germany and the Soviet Union started a European War (not a World War) in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:
(Non-aggression/secret protocol).
The Secret Protocol; a division of Eastern Europe.
What did it have to do with us, could we not learn from WW1
Even if they wouldn't have been able to it still would have been nice if France and Britain would not have thrown Czechoslovakia to the Nazi wolves.
I am also a fan of oversimplified history on TH-cam
I remember reading a while ago that the whole "appeasement" thing wasn't as dumb as it seemed. The UK was not ready for war: their rearmament did not anticipate war starting anywhere near as soon as it did. They had to buy time. Giving Hitler what he wanted was basically buying time so that the UK could rearm, defeat Germany and then free the lands taken by them. It's obviously not great for the people who's lands are given to the Germans but from the UK pov they didn't think they had any other options.
@@pozzyvibes6997 doesn't mean it still wasn't a dick move.
@@GrievousReborn Hitler invaded Poland, what a dick move 🤣🤣
Lose a battle, win the war. It’s called tactics in chess. You sacrifice a peon to win the battle. It is the sad reality of choices we make sometimes for the “greater good”, or with a more relatable example, we go to work, sacrificing our time to maybe escape that job and do what we love of work towards that, or provide for those we love. Some might be lucky to actually do work they love hehe.
If England would have thrown all its resources at the start they might have lost and German invasion could have been real. Then again there might have been a small chance they could have won at the start saving the world much pain. Who knows.
Alternative realities.
This makes me think much differently about the fact Germany took France in 6 weeks. I was thinking they were equally matched other than Germanys tactics. Seems that was not true.
Oh definitely not
Yeah. Also, no one was prepaired for blitzkreg.
To be fair, in the 1930’s the impression (though not the reality) of the French army across Europe was that it was as good, if not superior, to that of Nazi Germany: when German soldiers entered the previously demilitarised Ruhr area in 1936, the German high command were actually fearful of the French Army, to the point that the German soldiers were under strict orders to retreat immediately from the Ruhr, if the French army advanced…this never happened, and this order (obviously Top Secret at the time) was only revealed years after WW2 ended…
Think that is another possible “what if” as it would have been a total embarrassment and a climb down for Nazi Germany had that actually happened, before WW2 started…and actually would have given Great Britain and France the belief, that they could stand up to Nazi Germany, rather than appease them....
On paper france was more powerful the Germany or England
Germany had pound for pound the best soldiers of the war, but France had a better tank than anything Germany had. The problem was how the nation's differed in their use. Germany concentrated and used them to run ahead through lines and allow their mobilized infantry to secure holdings behind them while regular infantry secured the rear. France spread their tanks out as a support unit for their infantry. Contrary to popular opinion, the Maginot Line actually performed spectacularly because Germany never really tried to go through it. The Ardennes was the ignorant weakness for France. If France actually committed to biting the bullet and fighting the defensive battle on their own land again, its conceivable they could have held at least long enough for more reinforcements from colonial holdings. Just for the record Germany expected the invasion to take significantly longer than the 6 week collapse.
Another history channel, The Armchair Historian, did a similar video called "France's Failed 1939 Invasion of Germany". I recommend it as a follow up to anyone watching.
I hope he pronounces better. Witzleben is such a beautiful name, like a Porsche, quirky beautiful. The meaning is funny, but it can sound both slightly funny and also very seriously.
We don't call the presenter S'mohn Ouisltier, why would he have difficulties saying Witzleben (vitslayben, not ouitsel ben). But i guess the voice makes up for it.
@@borisos9832 What percentage of Germans (roughly) would agree with the 'lay' over 'leh' pronunciation? (genuine question - not a criticism)
@@danielguy3581 oh you're right, I was writing that late at night, lay just came to my mind, and it's actually an americanized pronunciation..... btw. I still haven't looked up why the Z is no longer used in organize, americanize, fertilize. The auto-correction keeps suggesting S...?
It shouldn't be that hard for me to figure out English, but as I get older i am noticeably slowing down at everything, darn it. How will I ever watch all the documentaries AND comment appropriately. Maybe I actually should stick to gardening or music. See? doing it again, writing on a whim, tsk tsk :P
Oh and less than half, to answer your question. Anywhere between 10-40%, wild guess.
@@borisos9832 If that's Americanized, I would guess that would be by Yiddish influence.
Check if your auto-correct is set to US or UK English (incidentally, while I generally conform to UK spellings, the 'ize' is one exception; I don't have a proper justification for the hybridization - possibly the z just graphically looks better in that position)
If commenting 'appropriately' is important to you, you are more attentive and focused than the majority of youngsters, worry not.
@@borisos9832 I guess the major reason to use the english pronounciation is that he adresses an english speaking audience. They use their names like many other countries use their names for foreign names/cites/countries. To change the pronounciation might lead to confusion, because it's not clear for everyone what city he is talking about (Cologne vs Köln eg.).Of course "Witzleben" shouldn't be very well known no matter how he pronounces it, but to add special exceptions/rules will only make this case more complicated. And this neither useful nor reasonable.
With personal names it's something different ofc, as long as he isn't known otherwise.
One third of the French army sat in the Maginot, one third gave up and wouldn’t fight, one third fought like lions and indeed without their bravery fighting rearguard at Dunkirk the British and some French soldiers wouldn’t have escaped to Britain.
"One third gave up and wouldn't fight"
I'd like to know who you're referring to exactly. More French soldiers died after Dunkirk than before.
The French defeat had nothing to do with bravery. Similar to 1870 and 1914, 1940 saw the French military suffering from old, incompetent generals and outdated tactics.
@@Nn-3 there were two French generals in charge and they disliked each other and wouldn’t speak.
Source : trust me, bro.
@@MrGaters34 but it's true
It still says the result have been different if a Gen Gamellin was not in charge of both the offensive and preparing the French army. Professional armies are meant to be trained and ready to fight any war with little notice.
Yes Gamelin is not exactly regarded as a hero in France. There are those who blame the entire occupation on him, though I wouldn't go that far. My opinion is more that after savong their ass in the revolutionary war America should have declared war early and defended France, that would have also helped the Royal Navy a lot as the Germans used France extensiveky to attack shipping and the UK. But it wasn't popular to join early on. Roosevelt was relatively alone in his wish to enter the war early.
@@221b-l3t The USA wouldn't be needed to join with troops. Just imagine a French Army with the lend lease equipment the soviets got. While Britannia ruled the waves (No ports for U-Boats at Biscaya) Germany would have been doomed like 1916.
@@gargoyle7863 The problem is that not just the leadership was incompetent but there really was no appetite for war among the soldiers. The memory of the Great War was still fresh and France had suffered really badly. A lot it being fought on it's soil. Maybe they would have prevailed maybe not. I don't think it's clear cut. Though if the tanks had been utilised effectively who knows. It might have been enough to pin the Germans down and then if America sent a bunch of equipment maybe. But it's a lot of what if's. Then again, no Gamellin and likely the entire leadership would have been different, making it a fundamentally different army and maybe an effective one.
We had no reason to join at the start of the war
Besides our army wasn’t in the top 10
A panzer 2 was better then anything we had
@@gargoyle7863 But Germany wasn't doomed in 1916. The French Army almost mutinied and forced a peace in 1917. And Russia surrendered in 1917. It was the thought of the arrival of potentially millions of American troops that led to the Great War ending when and how it did.
Poland: help guys, you promised!
Europe: (twiddling thumbs in English and French)
“Didn’t you see our strongly worded letters to Herr Hitler?”
Not a criticism, but on some of your videos it would be a great help to have some maps for reference to the place names given in the narrative.
Please watch an documentary or 2 on ww2, kin burns is great 👍
NO ! Click on a new tab and do some homework. Ignorance due to laziness, again and again ?
Grow up.
If you want try the opposite with a lot of visualization and maps then try the "The Armchair Historian"'s video "France's Failed 1939 Invasion of Germany"
The Allies were fighting the new war with the old war tactics. They wanted to slowly strangle Germany in an attrition type stationary battle. The Germans were fighting the new war with new tactics and the Allied command structure was too slow to react to a rapidly changing battle field situation.
Chamberlain could have crushed Germany early on.. But Chamberlain pissed and SHT his pants. Yes good soldiers would have died but WW2 would not have happened.
The German tried to fight blitzkrieg and Allied mistakes allowed that. Stalin just fooled himself, might be at the time he already looked to the mirror too much. In fact Germany was not really prepared to sustain so called "blitzkrieg" any more than any other good army then and now.
When you "blitz" you are incurring logistical debt, if you overdraw and not pay back in time you loose. American football coaches and players know it well: if you "blitz" large and often, make sure you GET the quarterback or at least make him throw out, otherwise there may or may not be a safety left in the backfield ...
The bulk of German army "went to France on foot and their materiel on the horse-drawn wagons" (loosely from Adam Tooze: "Wages of Destruction"). You can see that on the actual WW2 documentary movies and photos.
You don't have to dig high academia history though, Wikipedia describes the Battle of France accurately, the outcome was not by any means preordained.
Did Allies attacked Germany in 1938 instead of the stupid negotiations they might have saved millions of lives.
America was the reason they won
@@thatbeme This is inaccurate. Britain was much less prepared for war at the time than Germany was. The mobilization hadn't even started. Chamberlain thought he was buying time. In hindsight we can say that it would've been better for him to go ahead and declare war, but it was a reasonable decision for him to make at the time.
@@dark7element NO....
The only thing worse than being an enemy of the allies is being a friend.
The french high command wanted to forget WWI so hard they tried to re-fight the franco-prussian war of 1870
which they won, right?😂
@@gargoyle7863 ? They lost
@@lilspasti5346 they won
@@GeoNoob wtf, no they didn't.
@@GeoNoob Hé le patriotard avec tes baratins historiques, tais toi et laisses l'histoire tranquille.
The tide turned against Germany WAY before the Normandy landings took place (0:40). The tide began turning almost a year and a half earlier, in Stalingrad. Four months later, the Africa Korps surrendered to the Americans and British forces who had landed in North Africa in November 1942 (Operation Torch). In July 1943 Mussolini fell from power and Italy joined the Allies, and this was followed in September 1943 by the Allied invasion of Italy. The tide had long turned by the time the Normandy landings took place.
People are always surprised or offended when I tell them that.
Acting like u.s saved the world solely, and its some how an insult to say the ussr was already on their way to Berlin.
@@TH-cam-C.I.A Indeed. The Wehrmacht sustained about 85% of all its casualties on the Eastern front and only 15% on all the others (Western Europe, Africa, the Balkans). This tells you who did the heavy lifting. This said, the Soviets would never have pulled it off had it not been for the massive shipment of war material or all description (400,000 trucks and jeeps, 12,000 armored vehicles, of which 7,000 tanks, 13,000 motorcycles, 2.6 million tons of fuel, artillery pieces, rolling stock, clothing, 1.7 million tons of food and rations, raw materials, medical supplies, some 18,000 airplanes, and so on) to the USSR by the USA from early 1942 on. All this had a much greater impact on the final outcome of the war than the Normandy landings, which were but a side show and a belated one at that.
@@Nickauboutte oh I do not take anything away from the u.s war effort.
They did their part with lend lease, their industrial power and the pacific. They did it better then anyone.
In terms of blood spilt, The soviet people sacrificed alot for the outcome the world got. They deserved to get to Berlin first.
The eastern front would have been a shitty place to be at the time.
Which you think would have been worse? The pacific of the eastern front?
@@TH-cam-C.I.A I agree. I was concentrating on the European theater, of course. I am not knowledgeable enough to engage in a comparison between the European and Pacific theaters, but my gut instinct tells me that the US probably had a tougher nut to crack in the latter, if only because they were to a large degree (larger than in Europe certainly) alone against the Japanese there.
@granasjj you should check out a bio called "with the old breed." The author is Eugene Sledge or "goodbye darkness" author is Willaim Machester. There's a good mini series on HBO or crave called the Pacific. It's based on Eugene sledges book, mostly.
Those marines went through hell. Fighting for 10 mile wide islands for months, in mud, rain, digging fox holes to find dead marines that were buried alive in mud slides. The poisonous bugs.
The japanese liked fighting at night and they seemingly would make sport out of crawling into the marine Fox holes just to have Hand to hand combat every night.
The japanese imperial soldier is a different breed of soldier. Put it that way.
Eastern front or the Pacific, I couldn't pick one. I'd need to flip a coin.
The Wermacht was like none other at the time. Their tanks ran on gasoline and could fill up at petrol stations and took France in 6 weeks. Frenchman on west coast thought the Germans were British soldiers at first because no way could an army make its way through France so quickly
Wermaht run on pervitin. That's why they were so fast not because of gasoline tanks. Remember that most of their logistics was still rolling with horse carts in that time.
Do you know britian had more fully mechanised divisions than Germany. A lot of German divisions were still horse drawn.
@@Challis1989 then why was Blitzkrieg so effective? I understand the horse drawn part and know that is real, but nonetheless the German war machine at that time was like nothing the world had seen up until that point. Americans wanted absolutely nothing to do with the war until Pearl Harbor
@will cole it worked because of combined arms combat. No other nation had pioneered the use of planes infantry and tanks together. The British divisions could move fast but didn't have the strength to take on the German fast moving panzer forces with planes in close support. That's why when you look at tactical maps German infantry divisions were always miles behind the panzers. On the few occasions the panzer spears were fully combated they had to wait till alow moving infantry arrived to break the defence.
It's why Hitler stopped the panzers it's a myth it was to save the British more to let the rest of the army catch up.
@@colewo92 Germany got a hell of a lot of equipment from Czechs, prior to their annexation Czechoslovakia was the forth largest military in Europe behind France, Britain and Germany. They had more than enough equipment and manpower to defend itself, and I’d imagine if events where slightly different Germany would be forced to invade the Czechs and fail like Russia has Ukrainian and this would have probably lead to the collapse of Nazi Germany as a whole. That’s just one possible outcome though but I’d like to see a alternate history about it.
In 1934 (year after Hitler came to power) Polish marshal Pilsudski proposed to France and Britain to declare and begin a war on Germany first, apparently he knew that Hitler is serious about his plans and wanted to take care of it before things get serious. The allies rejected.
Very good, AND Stalin planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed.
The Red Army would have to put up to 120 infantry divisions, 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5.500 fighter aircraft bombers .
Poland, whose territory the vast Russian army would have had to cross to confront Germany, was firmly AGAINST
such an alliance.
Poland wanted war with Germany too.
You left out the real reason for the French retreat, everyone insists on forgetting that France and England Governments saw Germany as a rival and not an enemy, and with sympathy too. The real enemy was the Soviet Union and they expected and would very much like a war between the Soviets and the Germans. Look at the dates the retreat order was given before they knew about the non-aggression pact (which is different from an alliance).
One should also keep in mind that when Germany went into Poland, Soviet Union went in, from the East, due to the Pact of non-aggression between Hitler and Stalin and between the two had already divided up Poland pre-war. This pact was broken when Operation Barbarosa started.
It is important to see all sides in a conflict and not just one part as that may many times give certain bias.
Idk but i think germany saw france as an enemy as they saw the soviets. After all the soviets because of their idiology but the Frnech because of the huge humaliation they inflicted to germany making many germans wanting revenge.
@@justaplayer94 I partially agree with you, the French saw the Germans as the second biggest enemy behind the Soviets. But the Nazis saw the French government as an enemy, not the common French citizen who for them has a Germanic lineage, because the government used colonial peoples in the army and in other government posts and therefore for the Nazis they were pro miscegenation, in addition to revanchism also. So the Germans saw themselves as the liberators of France.
I don't think that is the main reason the French gave up so quickly, it is because WW1 was mostly fought on their territory just 25 years before they country had barely been rebuilt. Hatred of Communism was more of a factor for Britain.
Non Aggression pact was signed 23 August 1939.
French didn't want to leave the Maginot Line. Total defense mentality.
That's a myth. The French wanted the Germans to go around the Maginot Line and fight them in Belgium, which is exactly what happened.
Actually that is not what happened yes the Germans went through Belgium but they also went around the bottom through what the French thought was impenetrable ground
Why the hell would the French want that lol. War of attrition on our impossible to pass fortifications? Or fight them toe to toe?
The French did leave the Maginot line. Infact these fortified positions were garrisoned by lowe rate reservists because the French army thought these were sectors that would see only little fighting. Their best and most mechanized fighting units invaded Belgium and got trapped there.
Whatever happened, the french would surrender. Much like it has done now in its own capital to albanian gangs.
There are some basic inaccuracies in this, right at the start. There was no treaty signed with France and the UK in 1921 with a promise to defend Poland. The treaty between Poland, France and the UK wasn't signed until the end of March 1939. What's more, it was only directed at countering German aggression.
The only inaccuracy with that specific example is the inclusion of the UK. Otherwise you're correct.
@@willswenson3169 Rather a critical inaccuracy don't you think, especially as the protocol between Poland and France was secret?
Britain betrayed Poland and left her with her hand in potty
Statement by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on 31 March 1939. (Excerpt)
_'In order to make perfectly clear the position of His Majesty's Government in the meantime before those consultations are concluded, I now have to inform the House that during that period, in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect._
_I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government.'_
This is known as the Temporary Assurance.
Anglo-Polish communiqué issued on 6 April 1939. (Excerpt)
_'It was agreed that the two countries were prepared to enter into an agreement of a permanent and reciprocal character to replace the present temporary and unilateral assurance given by His Majesty's Government to the Polish Government. ... Like the temporary assurance, the permanent agreement would not be directed against any other country but would be designed to assure Great Britain and Poland of mutual assistance in the event of any threat, direct or indirect, to the independence of either.'_
The above communiqué is about the Temporary Assurance after face-to-face talks between the leaders of Poland and UK, the evolution of the Assurance from a unilateral one to a reciprocal one, and a declaration of intent to make the Temporary Assurance a Permanent Agreement in the future.
Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland, 25 August 1939. (Excerpt)
_'ARTICLE 1._
_Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a_ *European Power* _in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power._
_ARTICLE 2._
_(1) The provisions of Article I will also apply in the event of any action by a_ *European Power* _which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces._
_(2) Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a_ *European Power* _in consequence of action by that Power which threatened the independence or neutrality of another_ *European State* _in such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that Contracting Party, the provisions of Article I will apply, without prejudice, however, to the rights of the other_ *European State* _concerned._
_ARTICLE 3._
_Should a_ *European Power* _attempt to undermine the independence of one of the Contracting Parties by processes of economic penetration or in any other way, the Contracting Parties will support each other in resistance to such attempts. Should the_ *European Power* _concerned thereupon embark on hostilities against one of the Contracting Parties, the provisions of Article I will apply.'_
Bold text mine to draw attention to the different words that are undefined.
Secret Protocol attached to the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland signed on the 25 August 1939 (Excerpt)
_'The Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Polish Government are agreed upon the following interpretation of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and binding._
_1. (a) By the expression "a_ *European Power* _" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany._
_(b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a_ *European Power other than Germany* _, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.'_
@@gagamba9198 Quite, it was March 1939, not 1921 and was directed at German aggression, albeit in a secret protocol. Any other power (which, realistically meant the Soviet Union), and it was discussion time.
The short answer is they expected things to be like ww1
...they were unprepaired for blitzkreg.
The French army in WW1 would have energetically attacked (As in fact they did in 1914)
And they didn't want a repeat of events like Verdun.
@@CBfrmcardiff And likely suffered enormous casualties. That is what the French were afraid of in 1939. Ww1 has shown that the defense was superiors and attacks risked high casualty rates. The French were not willing to risk suffering such losses.. Just like in the latter stages of WW1.
Your statement might be true for the French Army in 1914. But it is not true of the French Army in 1918.
@@nooneatall8072 Well, it is a conventional view that both the British and the French were conditioned by WW1 to avoid reckless attacks in WW2. However, back in 1918 their armies were battering away at the Germans, so I imagine that attitude developed as more of a post-war thing.
Of course, the particular generals in charge deserve some specific blame, but when battalions take all day to capture a village from a single machine gun, then the lack of energy would seem to permeate the whole organisation.
The question here is truly: would the Soviet Union have invaded on the 17th if France and Britain showed more resolve in those early days?
Being attacked from two directions certainly did not help Poland and precluded any defense on the Romanian Bridgehead.
This is the question that no one else seems to be asking.
@Munitia Blastpaw I just want a happier ending to Westerplatte where the British show up with a few destroyers off the Hel Penninsula and save our heroes.
Seems doubtful. Stalin played his own game. Also he had just killed off all his officers.
I don’t think they cared
@@johnstanczyk4030 probably not, Stalin wanted to take most advantage possible of the Nazi-Western fight, so he would have avoid this risk in my opinion
Simon ought to look at late summer 1944 events which, complex as they were delayed the war's end contrary to Allied expectations.
My Canadian brain is still reeling over the fact that the French advanced 8 km over a 32 km front...and that area included TWELVE TOWNS! Good luck finding an area that size in Central Canada with more than 4.
I wish I lived in Canada we would probably have about 20 in that space in England.
I remember trying this twice when I played HOI2 all those years ago: The first time I got lucky and managed to capture a Ruhr-Provice probably containing some vital industry and the German Army wasn't able to recapture it. Still took several months, though until they were eventually defeated.
The Second time I lost spectacularly. The German conquest of Poland was only delayed a few weeks and that was it.
Well my best run as Poland in HoI2 was the annexation of the entire Third Reich (including Lower Countries and northern France) by Poland signed on 24th December 1939, so it's not a best historical source ;)
HOI is not realistic in this game German is op and even by playing like the greatest strategic with France the game was made to help Germany so much you can have a civil war if you declare war too early so paradox want to made France weak and Germany overated
Yeah hoi 4 is funny like that, when soviets wanted to make aliance against germany, that was literally all it would take to prevent WW2, no matter who i play, if im allied with soviets, if they the are the one going on offensive first, germans always get crushed within months.
The problem was that Poland started secret mobilisation already in January, knowing how much time it would take, but the Allies did nothing and even demanded Poland to cancell (!) mobilisation as late as August! To the very last moment they totally believed Hitler that there would be no war, even when the most valuable ships of the Polish fleet were already en route to England, because Poland was totally certain there will be a war and those ships were meant against USSR, but against Germany in Baltic Sea they were sitting ducks.
The sad truth is that the French government ordered a limited invasion "pour sauver l'honneur" : The Sarre offensive objective was to pretend that France fulfilled its obligations regarding Poland. Before the war a socialist french newspaper published an article with the title "Why would one die for Danzig?" Danzig being the German name of Gdańsk, Poland's principal seaport on the Baltic sea. That sentence was in the minds of all the French soldiers during the Sarre offensive : Why should I die for Danzig?
A prof of mine fought in WWII. He said that early on, it wasn't that the Germans were so good, it was the the West and the Russians were so bad.
That's what they say about Rommel in North Africa. It wasn't so much Rommel's brilliance as British and Commonwealth incompetence. But it was better for the British to build up the desert fox than admit their own failings.
Once the British learned how to fight with tanks, infantry and an air force all working together, they were more than a match for the Germans.
Thats just saying Germans were good with an extra step...
He was incorrect.
Then why did it take so long for the allies to finish Germany. From when the war turned against Germany in 1943 it took 2 years for the russians to reach Berlin and one year for the West after the landings in Normandy. Germans were superior
If only the French army and the British Expeditionary Force sat on the Maginot Line, filling the weakspots, the Germans then couldn't have outmanuvered them in Belgium and then drive around the major obstacles of the Maginot Line without a fight. The French also knew it was perfectly possible to drive tank units through the Ardennes, because they did it themselves just a few months before attack on France, with their own improvised tank unit. They just chose to pretend it didn't happen.
It's ironic revisiting France's disposition in the 20th Century towards war. in 1914, the desire for retribution for the Franco-Prussian War saw France adopt a doctrine of fanatical and suicidal offensives to avert the humiliation in 1870. Then by 1939/40, France's doctrine had change dramatically to defensive in nature. Both times, they got it wrong.
This is not accurate. Every army in 1914 shared the same offensive doctrine, for legitimate military reasons, not "to avert the humiliation in 1870". The French didn't beat the Schlieffen plan with fanatical and suicidal offensives. That's ludicrous. How can you even say they got it wrong when they literally defeated the Schlieffen plan?
Let's look at the totality of the circumstances. Both the Schlieffen Plan and Plan XVII were flawed, both total failures. The Schlieffen Plan didn't capture Paris, and Plan XVII didn't capture Alsace, moreover, the Schlieffen Offensive was only checked after Plan XVII was abandoned and Joffre retreated to defend Paris (which he only succeeded through pure dumb luck by launching a concentrated attack as Moltke was spreading out his forces to surround and lay siege to Paris, had Joffre been met with a concentrated and prepared German line at the Marne, I think history would look very different today), and I'd call that getting it wrong.
You're right, the French didn't defeat Germany with fanatical and suicidal offensives, prior to 1918, nearly every French victory was a defensive action, but that doesn't mean they didn't needlessly sacrifice their men in the Spring and Autumn of 1915, or again at the Aisne in 1917.
As a Pole who is also Canadian, I have to say that France proved to be a cowardly nation in 1939 and Britain too. If you think about the fact that Poland's far worse equipped army (compared to Germany) were able to fight and resist for 5 weeks against Germany AND the Soviet Union... Imagine what could have been done if France and Britain actually properly DID something? Instead France briefly tried an attack and gave up. The "relieving pressure" strategy by attacking Germany's west side made 100% sense. Even the Soviet Union may have cancelled its invasion of Poland from the east if they had seen the allies attacking Germany in full force to defend Poland. Lastly, by preventing Germany from taking over Poland and keeping them off balance by them having to fight 3 countries instead of just 1, Germany would not have been allowed to grow as strong as they did by 1940 and France and all of Europe would not have fallen to them. Imagine if NATO countries today just decided "I know we signed agreements to defend each other, but nahhhh we gotta worry about ourselves so sorry we can't help" if one of the NATO countries got attacked these days. Ridiculous.
lets put it plainly - the French always were and remain cowards to this day.
There is a reply above with more detail. Unfortunately, Poland's & Allies plan collapsed in first couple of weeks.
The Western Allies just weren't set up to make the necessary attacks in Sept 1939. There just hadn't been enough time to coordinate & implement the plan pre-war. France had to go from a strictly defensive mentality (& military), to an attacking force from early 1939 after the pact with Poland. The strategy was also hampered by Belgium & Luxembourg trying to stay neutral.
Poland was caught in the middle of Hitler & Stalin, & was trying to get the best deal it could. Poland looked to have an Anti Soviet Alliance with Hitler, but talks fell through, when both sides wanted the same parts of Russia. It should have done an alliance with the Allies sooner (i.e earlier than early 1939), but it just didn't happen. From then on, it's future was in the hands of fate.
That said, the Allies could have done a lot more, but knowing Poland was lost, I believe they retreated early hoping for another round of talks/treaties, that had been happening since 1936.
If France couldn't defeat Germany in a few weeks, it's forces would effectively get trapped on the wrong side of the Saar & Rhine rivers, & wiped out.
Germany doesn't have to fight Poland at full force since they already was in agreement with Soviet Unioun on how to split Poland the Soviets are enough trouble for the poles. The French General made the right call in retreating to better defensive line back in France because the French Soldiers aren't advancing quick enough anyways and the Germans were going to pour in with much higher morale plus with their home front morale.
@@pax6833 To be fair to the Poles, if the French (& British) had stated that they would do a particular thing, & didn't keep to it, then the Poles have a right to feel aggrieved (even if they didn't help themselves with their dispositions).
The French bombed Berlin once, & could have used their air force at least far more.
The biggest issue was lack of coordination between Poland & France, as they signed their mutual aid Treaty too late for the French to get ready to do their part of the plan (& French inability).
Using a derogatory term for a people doesn't help your cause.
i see you point but Britain at beginning had a small army i suppose it did not want to lose it in the first year as we could halted it in 1939/40 but it would restarted in 45/46 if Hitler was left in power
[insert French tanks having five reverse gears joke here]
*Bush era propaganda (freedom fries, freedom toast)
i thought those were italian tanks
@@cleightorres3841 stop learning history through memes, it will make you look like an idiot to educated people.
Blitzkreig wasnt a tactic per say, but a desired effect. "Blitzkreig" to my knowledge wasnit mentioned in German documentation, but was used by the allied nations to describe Germany's early successes.
Germany employed combined arms attacks, concentrated armor, and encirclement tactics to great effect early on in the war.
It's an English problem but the real word is bewegungskrieg and western Media called it Blitzkrieg probably as it's hard to read the word bewegungskrieg in English from what I know
@@drscopeify blitzkrieg has a better ring to it
The Japanese also used a style of 'blitzkrieg ' in the Far East.
It doesn’t even exist in any meaningful sense
If you read books that cover communications between Guderian and general headquarters, he was overkilling the plan and was asked to stop. Blitzkrieg was such a stunning success for two reasons:
1. Guderian didn't listen and kept pushing.
2. Instead of sitting on the Maginot Line French and British took a trip to Belgium. Guderian just outmanuvered them, and then drove through the weakspots of the Maginot Line that were not covered because everyone went to Belgium. He literally just drove around the major obstacles. If the French stiffed the weakspots of the Maginot Line, it would have been a lot more difficult for Germany to win. Same goes for British Expeditionary Force. It didn't go down in a fight. It was just outmanuvered and then evacuated before suffering any significant losses in a fight.
The Allies were hoping the Nazis would continue East and get stuck into USSR. They didn't appease Hitler, they enabled him in the hopes that the Nazis and the Communists would take each other out.
I've always suspected that memories of the Battles of the Frontier in 1914 might have had something to do with it. Plan XVll was so disastrous it cast a long shadow.
Just the name indicates problems. The first 16 versions were rejected, so likely this one was deeply flawed too
This and the polish soviet war would be good topics for warographics
Especially how Poland jammed soviet communications
This wasn't the story I was expecting by the title. Facinating new learning for me this was, but consider that just prior to the invasion of France, French pilots reported the huge gathering of German mechanized divisions, just sitting along a long open road. The French command didn't believe the reports and did nothing. A few bombing raids could have ended the Blitzkreig right then and there.
Yes and no. The idea is attractive, but in practice, Tactical support of ground forces wasn't really an integral part of Western doctrine at the time and the French bomber force of the time was woefully inadequate for the task. OTOH the Germans had extensive experience of that type of warfare thanks to the Spanish Civil war and their 1940 Fighter Arm would have made mincemeat of French bombers, very rapidly.
@@JDWDMC the French High Command could have used artillery then to bombard said area but they refused to believe the reports of the scouts.
The entire invasion of France largely tdue to being lashed years ahead of what was really needed was up against a VERY stiff timetable.
If they had been stalled for even a few days in significant numbers it would have potentially given the Allies forces enough time to mobilize and deploy and essentially turn the blitz into another trench war (ironically similar to what we are seeing in Ukraine) that the Heer simply couldn’t afford to fight and FRANKLY everybody knew it.
I have a suggestion for a "today I learned" -- the term Blitzkrieg was an invention of Allied reporters. The Germans called it "Bewegunskrieg" (I'm sure I mauled the spelling) or "movement warfare". Blitzkrieg sounds better, but I think an exploration of how the doctrine and terminology came about might be an interesting deep dive.
Not sure.. only if the name was coined before May 1940. The Phoney War as the British called the situation on the Rhine front in those days was named 'Sitzkrieg' by the Germans, so by then the name Blitzkrieg was common
Blitzkrieg was a British Propaganda word.
Youre right, greets form Germany.
Movement war was Prussian military doctrine going back at least to the days of Friedrich the Great.
What made it so effective in world war 2 was the fully mechanised panzer divisions combined with their close air support could move so much faster and provide more concentrated firepower than any other military formations that had come before in history.
All while still maintainig effective command and control through radios.
The Wehrmacht never used the term „Blitzkrieg“.
The „Bewegungskrieg“ was the logical development of the war doctrines of Friedrich the Great and Napoleon with the new weapons „tanks“ and „fighter and bomber aircrafts. Plus the stormtroopers tactics from WW1 with Rommel as one of the best known representative. The combined warfare (= Gefecht mit verbundenen Waffen) made this kind of warfare possible.
The opposite of Bewegungskrieg is the Sitzkrieg (= lit. „sitting war“) which is called the „phony war“ in the USA or GB. Which marks the period of the declaration of war from the Allie’s and the German invasion of the Benelux-countries and France.
Yeah, most Germans aren't good at naming things (even in modern times)
Why didn't France and England not declare war on the Soviet Union when they also invaded Poland with the Germans?
Anti-German agreement:
The British-French one-sided Guarantee of Poland should have been cancelled immediately after
the Soviet Union invaded East Poland - to stop the war spreading.
The war simply should never have started in the first place - that is, the Germans should never have signed
the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and Europe should have started negotiations on how to handle the Danzig
question.
I know that France and England declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland. When the Soviets did the exact same thing two weeks later- crickets.
@@monabuhlberg-press3637 That Guarantee of Poland should have been cancelled immediately
after the Soviet Union occupied Poland, September 17, 1939.
The claim that Germany had nothing to defend its western border with is simply wrong. It had over thirty divisions stationed there shortly after the invasion began, including a fair number of first-rate infantry divisions. It would have taken a very vigorous attack to break through, and as the video says the French simply were not prepared to launch such an intensive campaign. Good that a video is out debunking the pop history myth.
well...the allies still went in with three to four times that many...i think with that numbers you might be able to say 'nope. not gonna win that one' if the allied even tried at that moment..
@@satakrionkryptomortis The Allies did NOT go in with three to four times many. Plus, having divisions does NOT mean preparedness to go on the attack. The French military was just not ready to go on the attack. Not with its weapons, not with its command culture, not with its lack of command of the air. The Germans noted after the Battle of the Saar that while the French were very skillful in matters of camouflage and methodical approach under cover, even weak counterattacks were sufficient to drive the French out of a recently-captured position. The French military just was't ready to attack.
Nothing was 1st rate in the west
All the new stuff was in Poland
@@tomhenry897 That is not true. First rate infantry divisions were in the west.
@@AYVYN That's not saying much when that was the last time the Western Allies weren't on the run on the continent until 1943.
Thanks! Learned a few things, I didn't remember or know about!
France had the might to throw germany into orbit but the generals were old farts.
More than once I have read or heard in French or English films disparaging statements that Poland collapsed after 5 weeks.
And now the facts:
1. France.
- an army twice as large as Poland's
- 100,000 British Expeditionary Force
- 100,000 Polish army recreated in France (the French were not eager to equip it well and use it at the front)
- many modern, better than German tanks
- relatively modern aviation
- on most of the border with Germany the Maginot Line
- attack only from the north-east
2. Poland
- 900,000 against 1.5 Germans, 1.5 Russians - 50,000 Slovaks
- about 100 modern light tanks
- obsolete aviation
- attack from all sides
Effect:
1. France
- complete failure and after 6 weeks
- at the time of surrender, most of the territory and a large part of the army were outside the German occupation
- signed capitulation
- creation of Petain's collaborationist government
2. Poland
- complete failure after 5 weeks
- occupation of the entire territory by the occupiers
- destruction of all regular divisions of the Polish Armed Forces
- no capitulation of the Polish state
- no collaborationist government
- Recreation of the army first in France and later in England
- in 1945, the Polish army was the fourth army among the allies with about 400,000 soldiers in the battle line
Conclusion:
We always keep our agreements (if Germany attacked France, we would definitely strike) and often we end up badly at it.
This story is so obscure and unknown that this is the third video I am seeing about it within one year...
Yes, but most people don't watch history TH-cam videos and general education doesn't mention that story.
To really highlight just how incompetent the French were, the Polish with antiquated equipment and a much smaller army survived as long against a German invasion in the west and a Soviet invasion in the east as the French did on one front with a larger army, superior equipment and with pre-built fortifications against only the Germans.
PL was asked by its allies to delay the general mobilisation on 29th of August.
As a result, PL lost 10 motorised divisions during the invasion this way.
I remember a series called "the World at War" which interview various survivors of the conflict.
One of them, a German officer, pointed out during the phony war had the French attacked when they were in Poland, they had little way to defend them. Obviously this is but one officers opinion, but it is an interesting one.
Unfortunately the French took the attitude "We won't shoot at them, they might shoot back"
The most important parts of a war are the beginning. Look at the Ukraine Invasion it was supposed to take the capital and knock out resistance in the north. It failed, and Ukraine was able to mount a counter offensive. If it had succeeded Russia probably wouldn't be fighting in a war in first place.
I'm pretty sure you can find that series on TH-cam and it's well worth a watch
I remember that!
How many TH-cam channels are you on Simon? Omg lol
I thought this was the Decoding channel and couldn’t figure out why I didn’t have a notification for it. 😅
Well done
I read the title as " did aliens end ww3 before it started".....
Remember the UFO news last month
They might have
@@scillyautomatic Very sneaky 😁😁
The irony, that a guy named wood wouldn't want the forests burned
British complaining about the US not joining the war against Germany before Pearl Harbor is especially ironic when they didn't do anything to stop the Germans before the invasion of Poland. And then didn't do anything until the Germans invaded Norway.
@@Mmjk_12 I think maybe the combined Anglo French armies might have been able to accomplish something if they told Hitler invading Czechoslovakia would have meant war. Sure earlier US involvement would have changed the war. FDR tried everything he could, but Hitler wouldn't play ball. And without an attack FDR was powerless to intervene, only Congress can declare war, and US public opinion was against sending troops to fight another European war. At the very least, war over Czechoslovakia would have changed the whole war. Hitler wouldn't have been able to invade Poland. And most likely would have had to defend eastern Germany from the Poles while fighting in the west against the combined British French armies. Fascinating what if.
@@Mmjk_12 The ironic part is Britain complaining about the US not intervening when they did nothing to stop Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia.
@@Mmjk_12 I not complaining about any of that. I completely agree. My complaint is just against the people who say the US just sat out and did nothing. When a, the US Army was even less prepared for another world war then the British. And b, the US arms industry couldn't even support our own defense.
@@Mmjk_12 One thing for sure, we can't allow anything similar to that to happen again. We don't need another world war, especially in this day and age.
The problem is that the French army in 1939 was geared entirely for defence, and employed vast numbers of troops manning the Maginot Line instead utilising them as available mobile and offensive troops. It has to be said that the Germans had their own defensive line, the Siegfried Line, and the 43 'depleted' divisions were still capable of resisting for a considerable amount of time against a possible French attack, enabling reinforcements to arrive to strengthen the line. In other words, the Germans had better and more flexible organisational and command and control ability than the French. Simple as that. In 1939-40 the French army was not trained to carry out deep penetration attacks against a strong enemy, it was a mass conscript army designed primarily to defend and execute limited counter attacks.
I love the fact that "contemporary historians" decide to hypothesize that the attack never stood a chance. But while we're doing the counter factual thing, do they think it would have led to a worse result than that in fact ensued in well less than a year?
Can you be more exact? How exactly do you mean
@@brandonvasser5902 I think he means the later invasion of France would have been worse. But then, maybe the Resistance would more widespread from the getgo? Maybe what became Dunkerque would have evolved in a counteroffensive instead of a rescue operation?
@@borisos9832 I've taken it as the French (& Britain) didn't want to have large French forces trapped on the wrong side of a river in Germany. Once Poland was finished, & German reserves came back, they would have been smashed. We have to remember the surprise the Allied High Command had when the Soviets invaded Poland. The French & British thought they had more time initially. With hindsight, they had nothing to lose, they can't have done worse then they actually did in 1940.
The French & British needed to push everywhere whilst they had an advantage, to grab as much German territory as possible, & take pressure off Belgium. They could have retreated & left screening forces, but given themselves more time to respond to the expected German attack. The issues were that the French Army & Air Force (& Belgian) thinking was purely defensive in nature, & they weren't set up for attack in 1939. Also, French & British politicians had been cowered by the fear of the Luftwaffe's bombers doing great damage to French cities, as at that time, everyone believed bombers would get through to their targets. The politicians still hoped to negotiate a way out of the situation.
@@eze8970 Quality answer there, EZ. Another consideration was that both Britain and France respected the neutrality of Belgium and the Netherlands. During WWI, The Netherlands was "the lung through which Germany breathed." Invading it looked like a complete dick move. I could devote screeds to Fall Gelb and how risky it was. But that's another video entirely.
@@stephenlitten1789 Thank you for your reply. Yes, I'd forgotten Germany got various imports during WW1 through the Netherlands, one of them being cement for their concrete fortifications.
The Dutch being scared of German invasion & dividing their forces between Belgium & German borders didn't work out well for them.
Neutrality hindered the Allies in a big way, even if the Allies could have been on the Belgian/German border, it would have helped in a big way.
The Germans were fortunate during Fall Gelb, it shouldn't have worked (or at least would have been a lot slower, which could have had other consequences).
If I recall, they tricked the French into keeping a lot of their reserves initially behind the Maginot Line, facing only only a third of their strength German divisions. Allied general intelligence & lack of recon over the Ardennes was unforgiveable, & Allied High Command was still wedded to WW1 principles, resulting in very poor thinking. The French Airforce not being properly mobilised was also unforgiveable. The Germans had good practice previously from the Rhineland on, of their capabilities, & how to invade a country, the Allies were years behind there.
The French either needed to spend more on the Maginot line, or on mobile reserves, the compromise they settled on (neither), saved money, but didn't work.
Only seen one wargame on the invasion of France/Low Countries, but it's actually one with lots of interesting variables.
Excellent topic and context. I always wanted to know more about this.
The Char B was a better tank, on paper, but it's 1 man turret limited the tank from being good at a tank. The commander for example, had to find the bad guys, load the 47mm gun, shoot the gun, and command the tank. If he was the unit commander he had to communicate with other tanks. The tank also didn't have a radio in many cases, and the times it did it was often a receiving only radio. The Panzer 2 might have been a better tank since it had a 2 man turret.
But the pz 1 and 2 where 1 man turreted tanks to if i am not mistaken
@@gerriekipkerrie6736 Yes, but the PzKpfw II had a loader crewmember, who was behind the driver, that loaded shells into the main gun, so the commander didn't have to. This made firing the main gun much quicker. Some of the French crewmen in Char Bs would clear out after getting peppered by coordinated fire from multiple German tanks, even though the rounds couldn't actually penetrate their armor.
@@darrellhanning5068 Oh yeah my bad, its a shame the French had bad tank tactics.
It was still good as a 'ram tank'. Those tanks could have caused a lot of mayhem if were properly supported by more flexible machines, infantry and had aircover. There is a memory by german officer who fought on the East Front, but he said that nowhere did he feel as hopeless as in France when fighting against Char B tanks. He wrote it didn't matter from what did they shoot, at what distance or angle, it just did nothing and the monster kept pushing.
@@piotrmalewski8178 A tank designed with 2 guns is not supposed to be a ram tank... Just trying to save this tank with this argument prooves it's a useless pile of steel.
B1bis is just a tactical annoyment during an hour for the opponent, not a tool to win a battle.
To be fair to the Germans, their anti-tank guns couldn't penetrate anything. They were called doorknockers for a reason.
Many wars could have been won or preemptived if there had been a large force always ready but that would be very expensive.
You can't win wars without public support, and you can't have public support without a laundry list of reasons why the enemy is in fact the enemy. You can only get that with time
I am from the saar-region. My grand-pa was an soldier who was working on the construction of the westwall ( aka "siegfriedline") - and I can you assure that in 39 a great part of the westwall was NOT completed. The concrete-works were mostly done, but the "interior" of most pill-boxes and bunkers were empty - especially no weapons, no commication equipment, no wiring. also a great part of the trenches between the bunkers and pill-boxes were not finished. The westwall was finally completed and "operational" in March 1940 - and an big amount of the installations and weapons that where then installed in the westwall were "looted" from the techoslovakian fortifications of the so-called Benesch-Line (even when the german propaganda has always telled a different story)! an other thing that you schould mention is the ammunition-situation: The german Wehrmacht had created 3 big stockpiles of ammunition for the case of an war: one for the eastern-front, one for the western front and one central as reserve. But it prooved that the ammunition consumption of the german troops was much much higher then expected. After the "Poland-Invasion" the whole "eastern-front" ammunition stockpile was empty, and the whole "central-reserve" stockpile too and even some of the ammunitions of the "western-front" stockpile have been sent to the german units fighting in Poland. Even with full-force-production the german ammunition-industrie was not able to refill the german ammunition stockpiles till April 1940 to pre-war-levels! Also the losses that the polish defenses inflicted to the german agressors is mostly under-estimated. For example, the total number of german tanks in December 1939 was at under 225, mostly Panzer II and looted tchechoslovakian t-35 (t) and t - 38 (t) and their were no more than a dozen of the "famous" Panzer III´s that were still operational, the rest was in repair.... and so a lot of other german military-equipment not only of the Heer( Army), but also of the Luftwaffe. So I think the chance of the "saar-offensive" was much bigger than thought. But the French- like the British-Government booth believed that, due to their full-force (secret) armament procuring programms, every minute they can "postphone" the "real battle", will be to their advantage. and so they missed the "window of opportunity". And they gave the german Wehrmacht the necessary time to recover, re-organise and re-ammunition and to improve their weaponry with better, newer weapons.
"blitzkrieg" is NOT a type of battle tactic! the blitzkrieg doctrine simply describes overrunning and overwhelming a country, often times with heavy armour spearheads, before supply chains or prolongued attrition come into effect. it is at best a way of strategic thinking and not to be changed up with the tactic of armoured spearheads or thunderruns, even though these most likely will come into effect.
If you're going to correct someone don't be wrong yourself. There was no such thing as Blitzkrieg at all.
If so double check on Wikipedia, there is no clear definition, word has no origin in German handbooks, doctrine or tactics but in western media. Term is used to refer to tactics, operational, terror element and what not. Pretty sure the the first time I personally learned of the term it was explained as what now is referred to as thunder-runs with large concentration of tanks followed by efficient supply/logistics behind the tanks, but if Wikipedia is to believed no one is correct about exactly what the term refers to (since it western media term has never been clearly defined)
@@RandomStuff-he7lu Just because the Nationalsozialisten called it "Moderne Kriegsführung" doesnt mean, that it didnt existed. It is a new name just like Nazis is a new name for Nationalsozialisten. So dont be false smart.
@@sammybeutlin2763 Nazi wasn't a new name for National Socialism. It was an old term for a dumb peasant.
"Blitzkrieg" was also a term the Germans themselves didn't use in 1940, it was a term used by the newspapers and the name stuck.
This scheme did not begin or end on September 1939 and surely was not restricted to France, but rather carefully generated by Great Britain. Also remember that the Poles had fought well; given the circumstances. It was (and still is) the end product of Anglo-Saxon kind of perception of the world. To merely list and then, attentively examine the Western attitude, adopted versus Germany and Soviet Union from 1918 onwards is quite illuminating. Furthermore, the comparison of the oh so widely discrepant posture against Weimar (1918-1933) and Nazi Germany (1934-1940; yep up until April 40, long after that the war is launched) would be even more instructive.
The Allies demanded that Poland should cancel mobilisation as late as 30th of August!
They totally believed that Hitler would not attack if his demands are met.
Poland only managed to field that many troops because secret mobilisation started as early as January. Yet mobilisation was called off on August 30th. If not the Allies, Polish Army could have fielded up to 1.5 million troops. With foreign supply of additional weapons, it could have been even between 2-3 million, there were that many volunteers interested in joining.
If only not this Allied sabotage, the Battle of Bzura could have been won and Germany would be stuck in Poland for months to come. Played well, Germany could have lost the war in one year.
@@piotrmalewski8178 Well, it was (and still is) not the first time that Western powers, essentially the Anglo-Saxons throw a country (Poland in this case) to the wolves, isn't it? It is easy to conceive that coming to the rescue was not their intention at all; especially in the light of the quite instructive events, such as "phoney war" or intention to intervene to Finno- Soviet conflict, to recite just a few, limited to the first phase of WW2, not counting many other "blunders", leading to war.
I want also enphasize another important point; presuming you are Polish. Poland had aspired to the dominance of whole Eastern Europe trough Miedzymorze (a concept now called Intermarium) in the past, but failed to attain its goal twice during 14th century; not solely due to Hungary's insistence to retain its own sovereignty, but also on account of unavoidable geopolitical reality (which does not exclude the crucial value of the position that Poland holds in Eastern Europe; ex- socialist defense treaty is not entitled as Warsaw in vain or USA is not presently patronizing the wildest dreams of Polish nationalists for the sake of the jokes). They are encouraging the same delusion, just to look after their own interests to the expense of others'.
Thank you
I think there is another overlooked factor- the questionable loyalty of French elites and military brass. Many of them would prefer a foreign fascist enemy than that of the people. Often, their deepest sympathies were for fascist dominance and maintenance of their status quo, not democratic rule by disgruntled masses.
Wonder if Patton somehow had been in charge of the French forces in the Saar offensive...I think he would have been more aggressive.
The French wouldn’t have provided him with the medium artillery or maneuver brigades he would have needed for his type of warfare & wouldn’t have allowed him anywhere near their forces.
To start a major offensive you need a fully mobilised army, and soldiers that have undergone at least a few weeks of training and were explained what and why. When Poland announced general mobilisation, the Allies forced it to CANCEL mobilisation, as late as August 30th! 1939! So you can imagine the level of preparation in France.
The reason why Poland managed to give any resistance at all, was that secret mobilisation was started as early as January, and before general mobilisation was announced and then cancelled, hundreds of thousands troops had already been in their units and many had months of training behind them. As much as a conscipt army can be, they could be considered elite units, and still didn't stand a chance.
It is also a fact that Poland was so much afraid of Allies capacity to give Hitler whatever he wanted, that the plan was to defend the country at the lenght of borders, rather than forming a central ring of defence, which would have been a lot more efficient from the military perspective. It wasn't done, because Polish officials believed that if they give up Silesia, Gdańsk and parts of Greater Poland without a fight, Hitler would then ask for peace and ask Allies to acknowledge his gains under argument that Poland did not defend them. In other words, Poland was afraid of another Munich agreement, and that's why it assummed the worst possible battle plan it could. Again, Allied sabotage, only at this instance only expected.
1:58 This line about protecting the Black Forest as private property is quite sad when you consider civilian bombings by the Allies.
The Luftwaffe started the war with civilian bombings in Poland. Recieving the same tactics you employed is what happens in war, Germany just thought they could win the air war. That's why even Imperial Japan wasn't stupid enough to use chemical weapons on western troops, but had no problem with using them on Chinese forces
@@DavidSonofDavid Did you consider the context of my comment? One of the reasons the western Allies didn't set fire to the Black Forest was because it was deemed illegal to destroy property. Later in the war, they were bombing civilians. There's a sad irony to that.
Did you purposely make the argument that both the Allied and Axis powers committed crimes against humanity?
The Allied Powers doing something terrible does not make the Axis powers the good guys the Nazis tried to make Jews, Slavs, and many others extinct the Japanese Empire committed horrible atrocities on the Koreans and Chinese and they even killed more people than the Nazis did.
Cry me a river! Germany started it, we fought back using the same tactics, and won. That the Allies were eventually stronger isn't unfair, or cruel or morally dubious, it was an appropriate response. Your lot were not innocent victims.
“Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing” or more recently “fk around and find out” ❤
Well familiar with this story thanks to Dr. Mark Felton's channel on here, the half-hearted "help" that was issued was really regrettable, and I think the Pol's did an admirable job of defending with their outdated armory and over-reliance on horse backed cavalry. Of course, their army was HUGE so that helped them out somewhat.
Truth is we could have done a lot better, but a lot of our generals prove to be covardly and incompetent. Popular history remembers the brave and frantic ones like Kleeberg who was the last to give up, and only because he ran out of ammo, but several others panicked, had mental breakdowns, some even abandoned their own troops.
The whole Bzura counteroffensive collapsed because some generals did not execute orders and did not support the offensive, and some panicked and went for withdrawal.
There was also no 'general battle plan', the whole defence was improvised under a paradigm that less than optimal strategy has to be assumed, to show that Poland will defend and part of its land, even if that didn't make sense from militaristic point of view.
What really held the defence was frantic dedication of lower rank officers and common soldiers, and those few brilliant determined generals like Kutrzeba, Maczek or Kleeberg.
As for the horse cavalry it wasn't as outdated as the popular belief speaks. Polish cavalry was armed, among other things, with anti-tank rifles, 37mm Bofors anti-tank cannons, 40mm anti-air autocannons with anti-tank capability, and 75mm low-velocity field guns. They were more like high speed infantry with decent anti-tank ability and the most commonly used tactic was to move quickly from place to place and set up traps of machineguns and anti-tank weapons. It just happened theat they still carried sabers and were trained in swordfighting, but the charging attack was hardly used in this campaign, and it was only meant to be used against suprised infantry and artillery pointing at totally different direction than the attack was coming from. Otherwise they fought infantry style only.
@badofi Aside from the fact that revisionists tend to ignore what has been found about Hitler and the Nazi regime worked, it's often forgotten that Poland had ability to read German codes already back in the early 30s.
And another very important factor is hardly ever brought up; Poland hand extremely good espienage in Germany, because having 2/3rds of the country occupied by Germany and Austria for over 120 years, there were lots of Poles speaking perfect German and knowing German culture and having German friends and relatives.
For other reasons, there were also many Germans loyal to Poland rather than to Germany.
Yet another fact: even though formally in the opposing alliances, Polish intelligence cooperated with Japan untill the end of the war. Polish spies worked with Japanese, drove around IIIrd Reich in Japanese consullar cars, and even had radio in the Japanese embassy in Berlin, because Japan relatively much contact with Poland since the XIXth century and didn't trust Hitler, but did trust Poland. Polish Intelligence services had probably the best possible knowledge on what Hitler would actually do.
1:40 "in case of foreign invasion"
It is worthwhile to think about this for a moment. Why did the UK not declare war on the Soviet Union as well? The answer lies in the secret protocol attached to the "Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland". It states that the defensive assistance would be granted against Germany. For other powers, there would only be "consultations".
Very good question!
And when germany did, why wait so long?
BINGO!
Because its Not about Poland, Not about Some idealistic reasons to go to War.
Their "politic" Was always about: "manipulate THEM into Fighting and pray they just kill each other"
Why go to War YOURSELF for SOME reason, when you can make THEM kill each other for ANY reason and then be the hero.
Also very bravely Soldiers from Australia and New Zealand were sent 1st line for the Fighting experiance, These countrys were So deeply hoping for.
Again...why should you Fight on your own, when you can just send the people from countrys you graciously welcomed to your Commonwealth, for their benefit, of course.
Really wonder why they Not just sent indians...they got people... and after slaughtering them, raping the country, taking everything they got, stealing their complete history and treating then as non-humans...ah fuck... i meant "gave them demogracy", they couldnt wait to get this Adolf guy.
Naaaa right... they worshiped him, because in his hatefull, sick Theories He imaginized them to be "Humans", what was against the believe and treatment of their collonial Demigods.
These Indian Nazis...
Their mindset back then would be, they'll surrender anyway so why bother attacking.
The main reason, is that most of the British Empire, like the ANZACS, were still recovering from the Great Depression, which, in the case of NZ, was directly caused by both WW1 and the Spanish Flu occurring one after the other, then straight into WW2 without any kind of gap or breather.
Great Britain escaped the worst of the fallout of those issues, though they were affected. The ANZACS copped the worst of them.
God vessel the ANZACS
nice one
as a german im just happy that we are friends with the allies now.
In the end everything is controlled by jewish zionists and jewish zionists are friends with jewish zionists, isnt really that special.
And one day another nation will try to get rid of the people that abuse them and all of us will believe the lies we are told to kick our friends to the ground once again.
The soviets were an ally and they lost the most people by far. How are relations with them? Good?
@@TheMapman01
Actually the soviet union doesnt exist anymore so there i no possible relation.
Also the relation to russia is obviously bad since Germany is a country in the west and the west hates russia.
And the relation to ukraine is obviously good since Germany is a country in the west and the west loves ukraine.
The relations to soviet politics is very good since todays German government and supporters love both communism and hate towards germans.
The French were so lucky that they had the Americans to save their sorry ass.
The French needed a Patton, not Gamelin. If they would have started a speedy attack it would have forced Germany to move troops from Poland to the Western Front. It was a lack of will and a war exhaustion that the French suffered from their horrified experience in WWI. Interesting how Germany used its defeat in WWI to energize their country and France which suffered heavily in the first World War, suffered from a lack will and confidence by the time WWII started. I think the French Resistance was so fierce and active due to some of the reasons when the Germans became so formidable in WWII. Sometimes we learn lessons from defeat and fire is what is needed to temper steel.
The French had a potential Patton. As early as 1934 De Gaulle was advocating for rapid battlefield maneuvers using concentrated armored tanks and mechanized infantry for a potential strike into Germany to enforce the Versailles Treaty as well as to compensate for France's smaller population size.
@@gobanito I'm grateful for De Gaulle as I think he gave the French encouragement through the Resistance to continue the fight, not to mention aiding in the Normandy invasion behind the enemy lines.
Simon, why have casual criminalist episodes slowed down? They used to be twice weekly on the days stated on your Spotify page. I need my bi weekly fix!
He had one of the writers shot for purposely trying to write scripts that get demonetised and the rest are on a hunger strike.
Could you cite some of the historians who say that the Saar Offensive couldn't have succeed even if properly pressed home? I've heard that claim from a number of non-historians, but have struggled to find historians who actually say it; totally prepared for the possibility that I just don't know where to look, ofc
I doubt many historians would even speculate on this... To many unknowns.
That being said - its a VERY long way from the Saarland to Berlin and even the close Ruhrgebiet and Rhein / Main areas arent accessible without crossing the Rhein and the French attack would have have to cross mountains and forests.
Or in other words - Germany could have much faster bring back troops from Poland as reinforcements than the French could have done real damage to Germany.
@@bingobongo1615 well I'm thinking more like could the French have taken the Siegfried Line &/or occupied a substantial portion of the area (I suppose necessary to do the former to achieve the latter). That wouldn't necessarily have *ended* the war, but it would have made it a very different war-- Germany coulda done a lot less damage externally if they were bogged down fighting over their own territory, &c
The biggest problem with the Saar Offensive was that a successful execution would require general mobilisation to have been complete and troops after at least a few weeks of training before the start.
The Allies forced Poland to cancel general mobilisation as late as August 30 1939, which decreased the number of available soldiers by 100-300 thousand and caused chaos and Poland only managed to field about 700 thousand soldiers because secret mobilisation was started as early as January.
The Allies totally believed Hitler and did not have their own forces mobilised, which made any offensive (or defensive) operation impossible.
I don't know if this has been said, but whoever does your BGM is awesome.
If the attacked instead of signing the Munich agreement, things definitely could have gone differently.
PM Neville Chamberlain signed the agreement partly to give Brittany time to rearm. The British produced 50% more planes, ships, submarines, tanks and other munitions than the Germans in the period from September, 1938 and May, 1940. Albert Speer and other Germans have noted this in various books.
@@TraditionalAnglican but the French were armed.
Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany, Poland and Hungary. Should they attack three countries?
English Wikipedia geography map: Sequence of events following the Munich Agreement.
I see Simon is once again playin’ with fire here with that thumbnail
Where did Germany ( who were bankrupt after WW1) get all there money from to re militarize and build all their infrastructure up from?????? Do a video on that!!
Teeth
Rapallo agreement.
@@monabuhlberg-press3637 what's that??
Here’s a question. Why did the allies ignore the Soviet unions acquisition of Bessarabia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and eastern Poland then later all of Poland in favour of waging a global war on a nation for demanding the return of a small city in Poland with a majority German population that wanted to become part of the Reich?
The pnz1 and pnz2 were not training tanks. You don't go to the expense of armoring a vehicle only intended for training.
I think he meant to say that the model 1 and 2 in use at the time were repurposed into training tanks after being replaced by newer models.
@@nispelsm But that time came a few years later. During the invasion of France, pz2 was still the bulk of the german armor.
@@Notmyname1593 Fair enough. I knew they had been replaced during WW2, i just wasn't sure of the timeline.
War is terrible nobody wins.
My family was in England during this time and I had 3 uncles in fighting.
My father was too old to be a soldier but worked in Manchester constructing aeroplanes. My mother had 3 children to look after on her own dad only coming home once a fortnight.
There was an air raid shelter in the backyard where she had to take us children to when the siren went off.
Life was very hard for all.
At the end of the war when dad was home the British Government asked British families to invite young German soldiers to their homes to celebrate Christmas. My mother and father did this and found out his parents address and sent a parcel to them.
The problem was not with the people but with the German Government.
And isn't that the case today. Governments are corrupt.
Someone chosed the German government
Sadly this political party had the biggest approve of German society, they could win democratically next elections but they chosed another way (so it isn't like it was in Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Poland in 1945-1989 when government was forced)
A long war benefitted the Western Allies. Germnay was the one in a rush...
France did a small offensive that did not go well in 1939. Given the experience in WW1 I guess they rather played for time?
The small offensive of 1939 was only made in order to encourage the germans to divert forces from the polish front, but there was never any plan for a major invasion staight away.
The aim from the start was to buy time, initially for an offensive early 1940 if the poles could keep germany busy for a few months, but as the poles fell appart after 3 weeks, the plan changed for a large 1941 mecanized offensive.
The idea to buy time, and convert superior industrial might toward military for the win was not specificallly a french thing, but the winning stategy of ww2. All allies used it; the brits, the russians, and soviets. The issue here is that first you must contain germany, which is where the french plan obviously failed. The brits had the channel, the US the atlantic, the russians endless territories, but the french had to stop right away the german offensive, which they failed to do by sticking to a (in retrospect) way too dangerous plan, involving sending everything in northern belgium and holland, even the 7th army, the reserve army which role should have been to counter a german breackthrough.
The aim was to keep belgium and holland in the war (hence gaining a couple dozen divisions), but ended up with the franco british forces bypassed and encircled by the rushing german army group B.
Post WW1 - WW2 era France really fumbled the bag every chance they could
England fumbled a bit to, but they got it together under Churchill
Well, we were not backed by the British when we wanted to enter Germany in 1936, during the Rhineland remilitarization. And the Belgians deleted our defensive agreements and protested when we wanted to extend the Maginot Line. So let's just say we were not helped a lot, even if we DID fail in 1940.
Sidenote : after WWI, GB considered France as the main threat on the continent. The French and British empires were in competition all over the planet. So the British were reluctant to support us during the 30s.
France not being capable of winning the war in 39 rather then some generals blundering is honestly more depressing.
If they would have thrashed all the armor/ supply trucks when they were bottlenecked in the Ardennes, it would have wrapped up a LOT faster
I've been fascinated by the second world war since the 1960's but this is the first time I've herd about this conflict. Extremely interesting.
Hindsight is 20/20.
This needed maps and diagrams tbh
U need to get good at geography
Long story short: Poland was pulled into war with Germany by its allies and betrayed. Thank you. Also betrayed 6 years later 🤦
I am from the Saarland and... your pronounciation made it impossible for me to recognice most of the villages names. 🤣
why didn't Allies strike Germany in 1939? because the very purpose of all Allies diplomacy had been provoking deadly war between Germany and Russia.
Agree 👍
Yes. They could have end it when Germany took the Rheinland. They could have end it when Germany attacked the rest of Czechoslovakia. Poland was their third and last chance to end it before a world war would emerge. Three changes. Three wasted changes.
No, allies could not defeat Germany in 1939.
I am from Poland.
Most people do not understand how powerful Germany was. It was the most powerful economy in Europe, it had bigger population than Poland + France combined and it had more than 100 fielded divisions in 1939. Poland had 40, much, much weaker. France in Europe before mobilisation had even less than Poland.
Poland lost war in first week, before even French mobilisation was complete. Poland in 1933 had already smaller NATIONAL BUDGET than Germany military budget. In 1933! Before Germany rearment. In 1938-1939 Poland had 20 times smaller National budget than Germany military budget. Do you understand the scale? Do you understand our tragedy? It was hopeless fight even without soviet attack.
I consider France as a good ally. Both then and now.
Greetings to all friends and allies!
“We fought the wrong enemy.” -General George S. Patton
Having the Nazis murdering jews, communists, socialists and anyone that the Nazis considered as inferior was fine according to Patton
@@hatchxable Well having the Communists murder christians, nationalists and anyone that the Communists considered as inferior was fine according to the Allies.
@@imrengarotp3802 you gotta stop using drugs, lying for the murdering capitalism is not healthy
Russkies had cannon-fodder conscripts, Allies had citizens (who wanted to go home).
4:02 The frontier wasn't nearly as big as the video makes it sound. Belgium and Denmark didn't enter the war until 1940. In 1939, the Germans only had to defend the narrow border that they shared with the French.
Yeah that was wordgames kind of
With my 600hours of hoi4, the answer is a solid yes
I would think anti tank mines would have been more effective…Troops then have to cross on foot, easily picked off. Anti personnel mines are just evil
@Simon Whistler that quite famous photo of Hitler greetings Wehrmacht troops in September 1939 was taken in Poméranie, corridor of Danzig area (now and then Poland, before the territory disputed between Poland and Germany)
At the beginning of the war, the Western Allies were only sissies, they would not have stood a chance against the Wehrmacht's(Waffen-SS) professionals.